Sitting of 21 April 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Political Contributions
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will bring forward legislation to compel companies to ballot shareholders and employees before contributions are paid to a political party.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): No. The present law requires sufficient disclosure. Shareholders can raise questions about political contributions at the annual general meeting if they are dissatisfied.
    Mr. Winnick: Why no change? The Government demand that the trade unions ballot their members every 10 years as to whether political funds should be retained. Why not have the same for companies? Is it because it is the companies that denote money to the Tory party? Is there no limit to the sheer hypocrisy of the Government in relation to political funds? They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
    Mr. Hamilton: Our system of company law is very wide ranging and imposes extensive obligations on companies. If trade unions had to comply with such extensive obligations, they would not thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. It is very easy for a shareholder who is dissatisfied to sell his shares if he does not like his company's policy, but it is not quite as easy to change trade unions.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who make decisions on behalf of companies to make donations are rightly subject to the accountability of shareholders? Does he further agree that those who make decisions do so in the best interests of their shareholders, their company and the prosperity of the nation as a whole?
    Mr. Hamilton: I agree with my hon. Friend. If there had not been such abuses in the trade union movement, which were always supported by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends over so many years, it would not have been necessary to bring in the obligations in 1984.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is the Minister aware of the Sunday Times survey which showed that chairmen of companies that donated to the Conservative party had a 50 per cent. better chance of receiving a knighthood? Is not that a further indication of the corruption and sleaze which surround the Government? Is not it time that shareholders had real
    304
    rights and were consulted before companies donate to the Tory party, which has done so much damage to the prospects of Britain's manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Hamilton: I can remember a time not so long ago when it was a hanging offence in the Labour party to read the Murdoch press. I am glad to see that the Labour party has changed in some respects.
    Mr. Roger Evans: Will my hon. Friend reject in terms the very sinister word in this question which so far appears to have been overlooked? The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asked not only for shareholders, the owners of the companies to be balloted but also employees? Will my hon. Friend reject this sinister attempt to extend trade union power?
    Mr. Hamilton: I certainly do reject it. It is as a result of changes that we have made to trade union law over the last 13 years that trade unions no longer pose a danger to the economic prosperity of the country.

    Post Office
    Mr. Cummings: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the contribution of Post Office services to Government revenues since 1979.
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The cumulative total of the Post Office's external financing limit contributions from 1979–80 to 1991–92 is £802 million.
    Mr. Cummings: Now that the Secretary of State has admitted that the Post Office made £800 million, will he agree that we have the best Post Office in Europe, with the most efficient work force? The Post Office, which has increased profits by over 50 per cent., is a huge public sector success and should remain so. When will he present to the House his most extensive and far-reaching review?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sorry that the hon. Member is still indulging in the language of the past. The moment that a company indicates a success by making a profit, somehow it is seen to be milking the customer. It is important that companies should earn sufficient surplus to pay for their investment programmes and to earn a reasonable return on capital, which is what the Post Office is doing.
    Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend will have recalled, when he gave the information in his original reply, the value of the dictum that when an institution is in good working order it is a good idea not to mess about with it. Will he therefore give all the support that he can to the management of the Post Office so that it can continue to give an excellent service to consumers, whether in rural or urban areas? In particular, where a post office changes from Crown status to agency status, as is proposed for Wellington in my constituency, will he ensure that that post office continues to retain a central position and to provide high standards of service?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to seek an assurance that we are committed to enabling the Post Office to provide a high standard of service. That is why we have made it absolutely clear that the universality of service and of charge is not negotiable in any of the options that we are considering. However, I cannot ignore the fact

    305
    that company after company that has moved from the public to the private sector has been able to achieve significant improvements in productivity, has played a role in the international market and has earned greater returns for this country than ever it was able to do in the public sector.
    Mr. Robin Cook: May I invite the President of the Board of Trade to correct a misunderstanding that he appears to have of my hon. Friend's question? My hon. Friend put it to him that the Post Office is one of the most profitable in the world, that it has the most reliable delivery service, at one of the cheapest prices, in Europe, and that in Britain it has achieved a growth in productivity that is double the average for the services sector over the past decade. My hon. Friend's question to the President was, why put all that at risk by privatising the Post Office, because of this Government's obsession with selling anything that they can sell off? Since the President has apparently announced that he cannot do it for another year, because he cannot figure out a way to do it, would not it be much better to end the damaging uncertainty, the delay in investment and the anxiety of staff by announcing that he intends to drop the whole idea and accept that the Post Office is a public service which should belong in the public sector?
    Mr. Heseltine: That is the language with which the Labour party has sought to attack every change that this party has made over the past 10 years. It is because we have faced the Labour party down time and again that British Gas, the power companies and the water companies are winning in the world marketplace. Every time that we take a difficult decision on behalf of British industry, it is resisted by the Labour party. That is a very good reason why we should stay in power and have the courage to go on doing so.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us, who have strongly supported privatisation, still have reservations about privatising the royal mail? Does he accept that the figures that he gave to the House this afternoon illustrate a very good case for removing economic restraint on the Post Office, but not a very strong case for privatising it?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to express concern, but what I have to make clear to the House is that the overwhelming majority of post offices are already in the private sector. My hon. Friend will also realise that within the public sector there are unavoidable public accounting disciplines which constrain the ability of a public sector organisation to compete effectively with the private sector. What is happening in the Post Office is that increasingly a sector of its market is being eaten into by private sector companies and by new technology, whether it is the fax machine, or the bike or the courier. All these things are putting the Post Office under competitive pressure. That is why many people think that we can preserve the standards of the royal mail but widen the opportunities for the people who work in it.
    Mr. Hain: I remind the President of the Board of Trade that, unlike the other utility services that have been privatised, the Post Office's costs are 80 per cent. labour intensive and there is no way in which he can guarantee to rural and outlying areas the quality of service that they enjoy at present. May I also remind him, that on top of the
    306
    £800 million that has been contributed, through negative external financing limit payments, to the Treasury coffers, the Treasury has received an additional £400 million in corporation tax over this period. By privatising the Post Office, the President will perhaps reap a one-off return of an equivalent scale, but he will forgo year upon year of income to the Treasury from a service which the public respects and is the best in the world.
    Mr. Heseltine: I am the first to recognise the quality of the service, but the question that I have to answer is how can we enable the Post Office to build on the quality of its service and widen the opportunities for Britain in so doing? The issue is whether there would be an opportunity for the Post Office in a private sector context in an international competitive world, which would be bigger than that in which it can involve itself today.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of the Post Office.
    Mr. Heseltine: No decisions have yet been taken on the future organisation and structure of the Post Office. I will make an announcement to the House when we have reached conclusions.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the fears expressed about the consequences of privatising the Post Office are precisely the same as those expressed about the privatisation of British Telecom? Does he agree that the current uncertainty is bad for the staff, customers and management of the Post Office? Will he bring it to an end speedily by announcing the imminent privatisation of the Post Office?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to make the point that the Labour party has opposed every liberalisation and every measure to free the public sector which we have introduced and would therefore have prevented the large number of the advances now being achieved by the privatised companies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Jobs for the boys."] Opposition Members talk about jobs for the boys. I am glad that they recognise that we are concerned to protect the jobs of people in the privatised industries by setting them free to take advantage of the new, worldwide marketplace. I cannot today give my hon. Friend the assurance that he requests, although I am the first to recognise that many people in the Post Office are asking for exactly what he suggests.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State realise that there is all the difference in the world between releasing a nationalised public sector industry from the constraints traditionally imposed on it and guarding the unity and coherence of a service in the national interest? I thought that his political experience would have taught him that there is all the difference in the world between popular capitalism and unpopular dogmatism. Does not he realise that privatising the Post Office would be a privatisation too far?
    Mr. Heseltine: That was a classic example of the Liberal party trying to have it both ways. The hon. Gentleman must make his own decision about whether it is a journey too far, but we shall decide whether we are going to embark on the journey.
    Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there cannot be an organisation in the world, however good, that cannot be improved and that that must apply to the Post Office and the delivery of the mail and parcels? Will he press ahead with his plans for the privatisation of the Post Office and to increase competition because that will also improve the service to consumers?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to ask about competition. I have tried to say how technology and the globalisation of markets are already subjecting the Post Office to a range of new services. However, the critical question at the heart of the matters is how, while protecting the absolute non-negotiability of the universality of the service and the price, we can allow the men and women who work in the Post Office to expand, to compete and to seek wider opportunities, which is not compatible with public sector discipline. That is the dilemma we face.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the President accept that, on the matter of Post Office privatisation, his figleaf is becoming dangerously small? After nearly nine months and the expenditure of £500,000 on advice from Kleinwort Benson, he has no proposals to put before the House. The Post Office awaits its opportunity as a public sector company which can mop up the postal markets of western Europe. When will he allow the Post Office the commercial freedom to be that kind of public sector success?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is completely divorced from the reality of public sector accounting. No Government have ever been able to set free a public sector enterprise outside the disciplines of the public expenditure round and Treasury control. There never has been nor ever will be such a Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because the Labour Government designed a structure that was not compatible with a free enterprise system. If there had been such a system, the Opposition would presumably have found it in the years when they experimented so disastrously with public ownership.

    Exports (Scandinavia)
    Mr. Bates: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on measures introduced to promote exports to Scandinavia.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham: The full range of overseas trade services is available for companies wishing to export to Scandinavia. More specifically, my Department regularly undertakes special initiatives in relation to those markets.
    Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the north-east exports a greater proportion of its manufacturing output than almost any other region and that an increasing amount of that trade is with Scandinavian countries, especially that involving the development of the extensive North sea oil arid gas reserves, in which about 22,000 people in the north-east are already employed? Does my hon. Friend agree that those trading links with Scandinavia would be given a significant boost by the early inclusion of the Scandinavian countries in the single European market?
    Mr. Needham: I agree with my hon. Friend arid the sooner that we can get Maastricht out of the way, the
    308
    sooner we can enlarge the Community. As my hon. Friend says, the oil and gas industry in the north-east is of paramount importance. The story is one of immense success and I have no doubt that it will continue. Last year, exports to the nordic countries grew by more than 5 per cent. and imports by only 2 per cent., so I am delighted to say that we are closing the gap, with the help of companies from the north-east.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister take an early opportunity to remind our Norwegian trading partners that if they insist on slaughtering minke whales in the north Atlantic, they will imperil both imports from and exports to this country, because many people feel that the Norwegians should desist from the obscenity of whaling?
    Mr. Needham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings on that subject, but I assure the House that the Government will continue to do everything that they can to promote and increase trade with the nordic countries, including Norway.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that our sales into Scandinavia will be improved not only by the recent increases in Export Credits Guarantee Department cover, but by the fact that the pound is more competitive against the Norwegian, Danish and Swedish kroners? The fact that we have low inflation also improves our ability to sell abroad. If the high-spending, high-taxation, high-inflation policies of the Labour party were followed, we would be unable to sell not only to Scandinavia but to the rest of Europe and the rest of the world.
    Mr. Needham: Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend. Another difference between us and the Labour party is that whereas we have a strategy for backing winners, the Labour party, as I know because I have just read the strategy of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), is returning to a strategy for picking losers.

    Offshore Oil Wells
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many offshore oil exploration wells were drilled in the British sector in 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992; and what is his estimate of the numbers in 1993.
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): A total of 92 exploration wells were drilled in 1989; 152 in 1990; 106 in 1991; and 72 in 1992. My Department does not publish forecasts for the numbers of exploration wells.
    Mr. Ainger: Is the Minister aware that since the changes in petroleum revenue tax announced in the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now known by the United Kingdom offshore oil industry as the driller killer? is he aware that the industry expects a 30 to 40 per cent. cut in the number of wells drilled, which could mean a cut of 40,000 jobs in the offshore sector? Does he agree that the damage that will flow from the changes in PRT is unacceptable? Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer consult the Minister before the announcement was made and what does the Minister intend to do to restore confidence in our offshore exploration industry?
    Mr. Eggar: Clearly I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. Judging by his previous written questions on the subject, I thought that he was doing his best to prevent exploration of any kind off the coast of the United

    309
    Kingdom. Oil companies and oil supply companies have expressed both favourable views and reservations about what the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget. A number of companies are meeting the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to discuss the changes in the light of the publication of the Finance Bill.
    Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister agree that the successful bidders in previous rounds have entered into drilling and exploration obligations which the new tax regime may preclude? Does the Department of Trade and Industry realise that the honouring of those obligations may become increasingly difficult? Does the Minister agree with the Treasury's view that those legal obligations may be set aside, or does he take a contrary view?
    Mr. Eggar: I am amazed at the hon. Gentleman. He appears to be advocating that oil companies should break obligations into which they entered freely. I think that the hon. Gentleman should reconsider his view.

    Eureka
    Mr. Garrett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the level of participation of British companies in the EC Eureka project.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh): Three hundred and eight British companies have participated in Eureka projects.
    Mr. Garrett: What does the President of the Board of Trade think of the case of LJ Technical Systems in my constituency about which I have corresponded with his office? That very go-ahead, innovative electronics company in Norwich joined two French companies to make a bid for funding under the Eureka project. The French companies were visited within a month by a technically qualified civil servant who approved their bid. The British company in my constituency was messed about for seven months by some daft mandarin who actually did not know what the product was for and, at the end of the process, turned it down. How is that for the dynamic DTI?
    Mr. Leigh: The House will not be surprised to learn that the hon. Gentleman has told only about a quarter of the story. The truth is that an application was made on 9 July. Not within one month, or two months, but within one day, the DTI contacted that company and requested information on 10 July. The whole point of the Eureka project is that it should equal significant technological advance. We asked that question, but there was no reply. We asked again on 31 July, but again there was no reply. We asked again on 2 September, but there was no reply. A reply was finally given in October. In November, because of the highly competitive nature of the competition and the fact that there were more innovative projects, we did not give a grant.
    Mr. Garrett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the inadequacy of that reply, I give notice that I will seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Post Office
    Ms Eagle: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the planned change in the Post Office contribution to Government finances between 1990–91 to 1992–93 and 1993–94 to 1995–96.
    Mr. Heseltine: The Post Office's external financing limit contributions for the two years 1990–91 and 1991–92 were, respectively, zero and £74 million. The target for 1992–93 is £66 million. For the three years 1993–94 to 1995–96, the target contributions are, respectively, £181 million, £176 million and £158 million.
    Ms Eagle: Does the Minister agree that seeking to increase the contributions that the Post Office makes to the Exchequer by close to three times in one year will imply a massive increase in postal charges once the price freeze ends in August? When those price increases arrive later in the year to pay for that, will we see the introduction of a Tory post tax to pay for the Government's economic mismanagement?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady may like to catch up with the facts. There has been a price freeze for 18 months and a further six months of freeze was recently announced.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: My right hon. Friend has said how important the Post Office is to the country. In his drive to improve the postal service, will he assure me that regard will be given to rural post offices and that, if any changes are made, there will be assurances that the service that is currently provided to rural customers will continue to be provided?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is well aware of the considerable importance of the rural post office network. We have made it clear in the consultation papers that we have produced that the maintenance of a very substantial rural post office network in the private sector, where it now is, is an important part of our policy, just like the universality of delivery and price.
    Ms Hoey: Will the Secretary of State have a word with his colleague the Secretary of State for Social Security and try to persuade him of the folly of requiring pensions and benefits to be paid through banks rather than through post offices? Does he realise that that would ruin our rural post offices and cause many problems for many pensioners throughout the country?
    Mr. Heseltine: Many people choose to have their pensions paid through the banking system. There are obvious issues to be explored. The Government have made it clear that automated credit transfer is part of their policy. Of course, we are aware of the complications and implication involved in that, but I would not give the sort of assurance that the hon. Lady seeks.

    Pit Closures
    Mr. Janner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on the situation regarding the effect of pit closures on related industries.
    Mr. Eggar: The Government's views are set out in the White Paper, "Prospects for Coal" and in their response to the Select Committee on Employment. It is because we

    311
    recognise the impact of pit closures that we have expanded to £200 million the value of the package of measures to help affected areas.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister recognise that while the Government are making arrangements for special redundancy payments for miners who are made redundant as a result of the pit closures, they have made no announcement, whether to the Select Committee on Employment, in the White Paper or elsewhere, about special redundancy measures to help people who are made redundant in related industries, as opposed to additional help for the areas in which they live? What do the Government propose to do for the individuals and their families? Probably as many as 100,000 people will be made redundant if the pit closure programme goes forward in any form. What special redundancy pay will they get?
    Mr. Eggar: I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a distinguished Committee Chairman, continues to repeat a figure of 100,000 which seems to be a complete figment of his imagination. I wish that he would point to the positive side just once. For example, why have we not heard from him about the many jobs that will be created by the announcement that the Connah's Quay project will go ahead?
    Mr. Alexander: As the related industries must by definition include those interested in purchasing the coal mines that are to close, is not it astonishing that British Coal is closing down those mines at the end of April and yet refusing to allow any interested purchasers to view the mines in the meantime? Is not it clear that British Coal is denying the opportunity for those coming in to purchase ongoing coal mines and does not want competition from outside at all?
    Mr. Eggar: It is my understanding that, if British Coal were to decide to cease coaling at Bevercotes, which is my hon. Friend's concern, that mine would go on to a care and maintenance basis so there is no possibility of its simply not being available for sale to the private sector. However, I understand my hon. Friend's concern and that of his constituents. Clearly, it is important that British Coal moves rapidly to put mines such as Bevercotes on the market and make them available to the private sector. I take the message that my hon. Friend has delivered to me.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Is the Minister aware of the anger among miners and the management of British Coal that their pension fund is to be raided to match the cost of the new subsidy? Is it the bottom line that in March the Government announced a subsidy of up to £500 million and instructed British Coal in April to save the Treasury much the same figure? Is not it true that Conservative Members did not tell us that in the debate or the White Paper because they know that no one else will accept it as fair that the miners' pension fund should pay the cost of the Government's mismanagement of the pit closures?
    Mr. Eggar: What I think people are extremely angry about is the hon. Gentleman's irresponsible scaremongering. It has been made absolutely clear that there will be no rip-off of the pension funds—pensions will be safeguarded. That is the clear undertaking which has been given. What is more, British Coal will seek a court direction as to the
    312
    way in which the surplus can be disposed of. I wish that just once the hon. Gentleman would bother to do his homework.
    Mr. Dickens: Can the Minister explain why Labour Members always suppose that, by throwing resources after —[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here for some time. He should not be asking the Minister to explain anything about Labour Members: he must ask a direct question relating to Government policy.
    Mr. Dickens: When the textile workers of the north were put out of work and the mills closed, they did not have handouts such as those that have been suggested in this question.[Interruption.] That matter is relevant to the question.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am moving on.
    Mr. Barron: The Minister is aware of the blackmail tactics that are being used currently at Maltby colliery to get rid of the work force and stop production at one of the most profitable and modern coal mines in Europe. That would obviously take away the market for many forms of mining manufacturing industry. On Friday this week, I am going to visit NEI mining division in Sheffield, which employs some of the best engineers in Britain. What have I to say to them when they see their jobs being taken away by the Government's attacks on the British coal mining industry?
    Mr. Eggar: I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should describe what is happening at Maltby as blackmail. Through British Coal, the Government have committed a net £29 million to investment in the development of Maltby in order to create the super-pit of the future. Why does not the hon. Gentleman for once point to the advantages that lie ahead for his constituents rather than any downside?

    Manufacturing (West Yorkshire)
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will next visit West Yorkshire to discuss job losses in manufacturing.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers in my Department make frequent visits to Yorkshire. My right hon. Friend next plans to visit Leeds in mid-May to attend the Association of British Chambers of Commerce annual conference dinner.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is the Minister aware that in Yorkshire and Humberside between 1989 and 1992, 35,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing? Will he do something for the thousands of unemployed in Halifax by unequivocally supporting Calderdale council's bid for objective 2 status and by granting Calderdale assisted area status? He must be aware that Calderdale is like the hole in the middle of the doughnut, surrounded by areas that receive help, but receiving nothing.
    Mr. Sainsbury: We all regret—[Interruption.] We are all sorry to see job losses, but I hope that the hon. Lady will appreciate that inevitably improvements in productivity are sometimes accompanied by job losses. I cannot anticipate for her the outcome of the review of the assisted

    313
    area map. I hope that she recognises that we have only just received from the European Community its proposals for the rules that will apply to objective 2 status. They are being considered and are not likely to be agreed by the Council of Ministers until later in the summer.
    Mr. Batiste: What does my right hon. Friend advise those who, like the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), bemoan job losses in West Yorkshire, but advocate policies such as the social chapter, which would cost so many jobs by making British industry uncompetitive on the world markets?
    Mr. Sainbsury: I would advise, as I am sure that my hon. Friend would, that they consult industry. If they did, they would find that industry is aware that if it is to succeed, create jobs, win export orders and win a larger share of the home market, the key is productivity. That is what they seek and that is what the Government are helping them to achieve.

    Small Businesses (North-west)
    Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many new small businesses have been established during the last 12 months for which figures are available, in the north-west region.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: An indication of the number of new businesses set up in the north-west can be obtained from VAT data. During 1991—the latest year for which figures are available—there were 21,000 registrations for VAT in the north-west. More recent figures are published by Barclays bank, which estimates that during 1992 there were 51,000 new start-ups in the north-west. The figure includes businesses with a turnover below the VAT threshold.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: More than an indication of the state of the economy in the north-west are surely the Dun and Bradstreet figures for the year up to March 1993, which show that 5,046 businesses went under in the north-west in that time. Does not that give the lie to the claim propagated by the Tory party in the current county council elections in the north-west that it is the party of responsible economic management for the north-west?
    Mr. Hamilton: There are 3 million businesses in Britain and even in times of boom, businesses cease trading and new businesses are created. Even at a time of recession, many businesses are coming forward to take up the opportunities which are increasingly available to them. Lower interest rates, a more competitive exchange rate and all the north-west's advantages make me optimistic for the future. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman and his Opposition colleagues always seem to talk down the region rather than capitalise on its strengths and advocate them as loudly as possible.
    Mr. Hendry: Is my hon. Friend aware that most of the small and medium-sized firms in my constituency and throughout the north-west report strong signs of economic upturn? Does he agree that their continuing prosperity depends on the continuation of Government policies that deliver low inflation, low borrowing costs and freedom from the job-destroying social chapter?
    Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Were it not for the legacy of Labour party militancy on Merseyside it would be easier for us to advocate the advantages of the north-west.
    Mr. Loyden: Will the Minister take note of the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) that many of the businesses that the Minister mentioned are opening, then closing after about six months? If he lived in the city or the region, he would understand that. Are the several hundred people selling cigarette lighters in the centre of Liverpool classified as small businesses?
    Mr. Hamilton: It is a great shame that Liverpool has Members of Parliament like the hon. Gentleman, because if those watching our proceedings this afternoon regard him as typical of the city it is no wonder that we have difficulty in attracting people into it. However, in spite of the best efforts of people like the hon. Gentleman, we have been instrumental in attracting jobs to Liverpool, to places such as Wavertree technical park. We provided £6 million in grants, which has led to £30 million in private sector investment and the creation of 1,600 long-term jobs in the city of Liverpool.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that some new businesses that are started in the north-west do so with assisted area status aid? My hon. Friend will be aware that aid has already been granted to one business that has been relocated from my constituency to Wigan, with the aid of £1 million? I have written to my hon. Friend with details of another firm that is about to relocate to the north-west with assisted area status aid. Is it sensible use of Government money to give aid that involves a net loss of jobs—putting people out of work in one district and putting them into work in another?
    Mr. Hamilton: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns. Such policies inevitably create difficulties from time to time. Some parts of the country have great disadvantages on account of historical change and transition from old-fashioned industries to new ones. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy has discussed the case with me and I take his concerns seriously. We want to see economic prosperity in all parts of the country, and regional selective assistance plays a part in achieving that objective.

    Miners (Unemployment Insurance)
    Mr. Enright: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will hold discussions with insurance companies on the problems facing miners who wish to insure against unemployment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Eggar: The issue of policies and their terms are for the commercial judgment of insurance companies. It would not be appropriate to intervene in their commercial decisions. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) said, miners who are made redundant are eligible for generous redundancy payments of up to £37,000 per man.
    Mr. Enright: Will the Minister persuade his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to take time off from dipping his hand in the till of miners' pensions with

    315
    the same ease with which he used to whirl the Mace, and consider the problem of miners in pits such as Stillingfleet, who have a long future ahead of them but are unable to obtain insurance due to the document uttered by the Minister, "Prospects for Coal"? Insurance companies no longer think that any pit has a future. We are not talking about redundant miners, but miners who are in work—what is the Minister going to do about it?
    Mr. Eggar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the use of language. I do not understand how he believes that the cause that he seeks to promote is furthered by using language as he has just done.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: How many jobs are being created for miners who have been made redundant by British Coal Enterprise and other Government initiatives in coal mines or former coal mining areas?
    Mr. Eggar: British Coal Enterprise is playing an active role in finding additional jobs and relocating individuals. Between 1987 and 1992, no fewer than 84 per cent. of all those who registered with British Coal Enterprise were found long-term employment within a year to 18 months. That is a very impressive record.
    Mr. Stevenson: Is the Minister aware that any insurance that may be available against job losses is no substitute for a job? In my constituency, it is estimated that the proposed cruel closure of Trentham colliery will lead to 4,400 people losing their jobs with a loss to the local economy of £84 million. Is the Minister prepared to assure us that the resources available to create employment will reflect that tragic and massive loss in that area?
    Mr. Eggar: The Trentham colliery is part of the continuing consultation process on the closures. Should it be decided that Trentham be closed, of course the private sector will be able to lease or, in due course, purchase Trentham. I am sure that that is something which the hon. Gentleman will welcome.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that thousands of former miners in my constituency were made redundant and given a pittance for redundancy pay under previous Labour Governments, so the Opposition have no right to preach to us about hands in tills when it comes to miners? Do not millions of workers in other industries rely for their jobs on competitively priced energy, and to give coal a monopoly on energy, as Labour would like, would put thousands of jobs at risk elsewhere in the economy?
    Mr. Eggar: The hypocrisy of the Opposition knows no bounds.
    Mr. Enright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answer, I propose to ask for an Adjournment debate.

    Aerospace Industry
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet the Society of British Aerospace Companies to discuss future prospects for the industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My right hon. Friend has no current plans to meet the Society of British Aerospace Companies, but my Department keeps in close touch with the society
    316
    and its member companies. Two weeks ago I led a SBAC mission which discussed United Kingdom export opportunities with the Boeing company in Seattle.
    Mr. Hanson: Is the Minister aware that even as we speak there is a lobby of the House by aerospace workers who are seeking to stop the haemorrhage of jobs—50,000 in the past few years, including many in my own constituency in north Wales? Will the Minister take action on the aerospace industry and today publish the report by his own aviation committee which is critical of the Government's policy? Will he act upon its recommendations and give the House an assurance that he will undertake to accept the recommendations of the Trade and Industry Select Committee which is meeting today?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman is, I hope, aware that the aerospace industry world wide is suffering both from the welcome reduction in defence orders, and the recession in the airline industry which has obviously reduced the number of orders that the industry has to satisfy. The industry receives a great deal of Government support and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the British aerospace industry, particularly British Aerospace itself, is one of Britain's largest exporters and has an outstanding record of achievement? Will he ensure that British Aerospace, particularly the regional jet division which is located on the periphery of my constituency, always receives sympathetic consideration from the Department in respect of launch aid for new projects and the research and development which is so essential to the success of the industry?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am very happy to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the export success of British Aerospace and the British aerospace industry in general. As my hon. Friend will know, since 1979 that industry has received considerable support from the Government—no less than £1·5 billion. As I said in my earlier reply, it will continue to receive support.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman of the devastating loss of 269 British Aerospace jobs in my constituency at the Broughton works, and of the amazement of the work force who have learnt that nearly 100 of those jobs are to be directly exported to the constituency of President Clinton at Little Rock? Will he intervene? Will he receive the petition that I have today received from a lobby of my constituents, who are angry and disappointed and who look to the Government to give them help?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that decisions on its corporate jet business are clearly commercial matters for the company. It must make the decisions as it sees fit in the best interests of the business. The hon. Gentleman will be assured to know that the company has said that it has no intention of closing down the Chester or Broughton production facilities.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend received any representations from the Society of British Aerospace Companies about the European Community Konver programme? Has he yet had a chance to look at the strange classification of the areas that should be helped by the European Community? That classification seems to exclude counties such as Dorset and the travel-to-work

    317
    area of Weymouth and Portland, which has a 43 per cent. defence dependency and which clearly should be helped by any money that comes from this programme.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I have not received any representations on that point from the SBAC, but if I do, I will be happy to look at them. I share some of my hon. Friend's concerns about the proposals emerging under the Konver programme—especially for the reasons that he has advanced: it does not seem to direct enough support to the areas that would most deserve it.

    Nuclear Review
    Mr. Tipping: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will announce the timetable for the 1993 nuclear review.
    Mr. Eggar: The Government set out in the White Paper, "Prospects for Coal", their intention to bring forward the review of the future prospects for nuclear power originally scheduled for 1994. A further announce-ment about the review will be made in the summer.
    Mr. Tipping: Does the Minister understand the real anger in Nottinghamshire and throughout the country arising from the fact that, while nuclear electricity receives a subsidy of £1·3 billion, half the coal industry has been closed down? Will he bring forward the review of nuclear electricity as quickly as possible so that mothballed collieries such as Bilsthorpe, Calverton and Rufford will at last have a chance to compete on equal terms?
    Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that large numbers of trade unionists very much welcome the decision on nuclear power. The trade unionists for safe nuclear energy came to thank me for the decisions announced in the White Paper, and agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the review should be brought forward so as to end the apparent fear of some uncertainty about the future of the nuclear industry. At the time of the review, we will look at a large number of issues that relate to the future of the nuclear industry.
    Mrs. Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that nuclear power is clean, safe and good value? Is he further aware that the project team at Sizewell B is bringing in that project on time and at cost, which will make it a world-beating project team for further nuclear power stations? Will he assure the House that the benefits and achievements of our nuclear industry will be borne in mind when he undertakes the review?
    Mr. Eggar: Certainly we will. My latest information is that Sizewell B is likely to be brought in under project cost and ahead of time.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Will two critical decisions affecting the future of the nuclear industry be delayed until after the publication of the nuclear review? I refer to the deep repository for spent nuclear fuel and to the start-up of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant project. The Minister will know that it has already cost the taxpayers of this country £2·8 billion and it is costing British Nuclear Fuels plc a great deal of money every week because is is not starting up.
    Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the widespread concern on all sides of the House about the delays to the THORP project.
    318
    BNFL estimates that the delay in the start-up of the project is costing about £2 million per week. Of course, the matter is being considered urgently by my right hon. Friends.

    Exports
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the top 10 export industries; and what level of exports they are each responsible for in percentage terms.
    Mr. Needham: Aerospace, industrial chemicals, office equipment and computers and motor vehicles industries each contributed 6 per cent. Oil and gas, the electronic consumer goods and components industry, telecommunication equipment and control systems and machinery for general industrial use contributed 4 per cent. Motor vehicle parts and pharmaceuticals industries contributed 3 per cent.
    Mr. Pawsey: May I thank my hon. Friend for that complete reply which underlines the importance of manufacturing industry to the economy and, harking back to the question by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), also to jobs? Will my hon. Friend therefore join me in congratulating companies like GEC Alstom Ltd and Cegelec Ltd in my constituency, which have outstanding records in exports? Does he agree that much more might be done to help exporters, for example, by further reducing rates of export credit guarantees?
    Mr. Needham: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of manufacturing industry to exports. I am sure my hon. Friend would like to know that since 1981 the volume of United Kingdom manufactured exports has increased by four fifths, faster than France, Germany, Italy, the United States and Japan. The range of industries that I read out shows the depth and breadth of industry involved and its success. My hon. Friend is right to point to GEC Alstom Ltd in his constituency. GEC, one of the most successful companies in the country, is already saying that in the 1990s it will double its exports to the Pacific rim. I am sure that it will succeed in that.
    Ms Short: Does the Minister agree that, after the longest recession since the 1930s, the fact that Britain has a balance of payments deficit means that we have had a serious failure over the last 14 years in our strategy for manufacturing industry? Does he agree that that is very worrying for the future? Can he tell us whether the Government have any policies or strategy to increase investment in manufacturing, or will they just write off the future?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends write off the future every time they stand on their feet, by knocking British manufacturing and its successes. British industry is now in a position to capture an increasing number of markets in the world; the Department of Trade and Industry is standing alongside it in achieving that objective. As I remarked just now, if the hon. Lady was listening, the capital goods industry has already said that in the next seven years it will double its exports from £10 billion to £20 billion. No doubt the hon. Lady would like to come out selling.
    Mrs. Peacock: My hon. Friend will be aware of the importance of textiles in our export market. Can he tell the House whether he has received any representations on the report that south Korea is about to add fairly high tariffs to our wool textile goods exported to that country?
    Mr. Needham: I have not as yet. As I intend to go to Korea tomorrow, I shall raise the matter with the Korean Government.
    Mr. Bell: In reference to the question put by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) about export credit guarantees, may we welcome the extension of the guarantees to Russia following the G7 talks in Japan? Will the Minister confirm that the major issue facing exporters is the future of the 20 per cent. political risk cover guaranteed by the Department of Trade and Industry? It is supposed to expire at the end of 1994. When may we expect a statement from the Minister that it will be extended?
    Mr. Needham: We are considering the matter through ECGD with NCM and Trade Indemnity. I believe that the hon. Member is referring to the reinsurance aspects of political risk. Companies have been successful in managing to place some 90 per cent. of that in the private market this year, but I am keeping the matter under close review.

    Post Office
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the Post Office.
    Mr. Heseltine: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the wonderful support that I have had from my constituents in battles to save five post offices? Public meetings which I organised were attended by hundreds of people. Each of the post offices was saved and enhanced as part of Post Office Counters. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, in the event of privatisation, the services of those post offices will be further enhanced? Will he also look at the issue of postal collections across London on Sundays, which are currently rare? More collections are needed. If the Post Office is privatised will there be more postal collections on Sundays?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have no doubt whatever of my hon. Friend's unremitting efforts on behalf of the post offices in his constituency. I am delighted to hear of the success which I am sure he richly deserves. I should properly refer matters such as post office services on Sundays in London to the Post Office board and I shall rapidly do so.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Is not another attractive feature of Post Office privatisation for the Government the fact that yet another board will be created which superannuated Ministers can join and draw healthy emoluments for their services?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will remember that that precedent was established by Labour when it created nationalised industries and transferred Ministers to run them.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. John McAllion: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last night, a Northern Ireland Office Minister announced that, for technical reasons, the Government intended to withdraw their plans to privatise Northern Ireland's water. That means that only Scotland faces the prospect of water privatisation in this Parliament.
Could we have a business statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland today to explain the technical reasons for the withdrawal of plans to privatise water in Northern Ireland? We in Scotland think that the technical reason may be that the Government do not have a democratic mandate in Northern Ireland. But neither do they have a democratic mandate in Scotland for water privatisation.
Madam Speaker: That is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman will have to pursue his point through some other channel.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were not to know that, in my constituency, there are textile mills that manufacture the canvas on which coal is conveyed underground. My question was much more relevant than you anticipated. Perhaps I should have introduced that element earlier in my point.
Madam Speaker: That is right. The hon. Gentleman ought to lead with a question rather than just make comments. I was born not far from his constituency, and I know it well.

PRESENTATION OF BILL
  CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. George Robertson presented a Bill to make provision for the abolition of the not proven verdict by the amendment of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 183.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  FIRE SERVICES (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Fire Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  TRAFFIC WARDENS
  That the draft Functions of Traffic Wardens (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  FAMILY LAW (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Family Law (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Family Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

  Criminal Justice (Amendment) (No. 2)
  3.32 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend sections 1 and 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to enable the Courts to take account of relevant factors when dealing with custodial sentences and related matters.
  My Bill will give the House an opportunity to amend key defects in the 1991 Act. Since it came into force last year, that Act has allowed criminals who ought to have gone to prison to get away with it. It has unacceptably restricted the ability of the courts to imprison persistent offenders.
  Yesterday, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) introduced a Bill which also deals with these matters. My Bill differs from his in several ways. Before I outline those differences, I should like to compliment the hon. Gentleman on his impressive and eloquent speech, which clearly identified the issues that I wish to address. I associate myself with many of the arguments that he so ably put before the House. I differ from the hon. Gentleman, in that I do not seek a return to the position that existed before October of last year. Rather, my aim is to amend the Act to strike a new balance within the framework of the legislation.
  The Government introduced the Criminal Justice Act with some important and still valid aims. They just sought to achieve those aims in the wrong way. My Bill would give the courts wider discretion, without returning to the defects that the Act sought to remedy.
  The second difference is that the Bill is fully drafted and, after considerable discussion and consultation, has the endorsement of those on the Labour Front Bench. I can offer the Government the Labour party's co-operation in speedily implementing my Bill should they decide to take that opportunity.
  I am putting the Bill forward now because, like the hon. Member for Canterbury, I believe that there is a need for urgency in amending the Criminal Justice Act. The Home Secretary said recently, before the Home Affairs Select Committee, that he was reluctant to amend the Act until a year had passed since it came into force. I do not feel that he has yet grasped the urgency of the need to deal with the matter. I hope that the fact that, in two days, two Bills have been introduced, by hon. Members on each side of the House, dealing with the same issue will emphasise the importance with which the House regards the need to amend the Act.
  I call on the Government to provide legislative time to respond to the demand, from both sides of the House, for urgent action. That is why my Bill has been introduced so close on the heels of the debate last week on criminal justice, which saw repeated calls for the issues to be tackled.
  That is why the opportunity has been taken to focus two Bills on the same subject, on consecutive days, albeit from different points of view. It is an attempt to put pressure on the Home Secretary to act. He must understand that Conservative and Labour Members are not prepared to wait until October for a year to pass, while criminals are released when they should be behind bars, and then claim more victims. He must treat the matter with the priority that it deserves.

  323
  Sections 1(2) (a) and 29 of the Criminal Justice Act are the offending sections that must be amended. Under section 1(2) (a), in deciding whether to send a criminal to prison, the court can consider only two of the offences before it. The defendant may have more offences before the court. He may be a shoplifter or a social security fraudster who has committed a large number of offences over a substantial period, and admits so.
  There may be 20, 30 or 50 offences to be taken into consideration yet, as happened recently at Reading, the court can take a decision based only on two offences. That is ridiculous. The decision whether to send someone to prison will be different if it is based on two offences than it would be if it were based on a large array of offences, and that factor must be contained within new legislation. My Bill would amend section 1(2) (a) to allow the court to look at all the offences before it in deciding whether to imprison.
  The other offending section, section 29, deals with the length of the sentence to be imposed. It prevents the court from taking into account a previous criminal record, except in particular circumstances.
  Although the Labour party believes that we need to be tough on crime and the causes of crime, we are not seeking to join the "hang 'em and flog 'em" brigade. We just want to see defendants get justice in the courts and our constituents protected.
  Therefore, let me concede that the Minister who was responsible for section 29, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), then a Home Office Minister and now the Secretary of State for Education, introduced that section to deal with a real inadequacy in the law before the Criminal Justice Act was passed, and he had some support for that from the Labour party.
  It was then possible for the courts to sentence offenders not for the offence before the court but for their previous convictions. In a case in 1988, that resulted in a thief who had stolen fish worth £12 getting three and a half years. That was wrong, as Lord Justice Stocker said at the time. It was right that that sentence should be cut.
  That fault had to be tackled but, unfortunately, the Act sought to do so by hamstringing the courts with a series of complex hurdles before they could imprison anyone. It was the wrong approach to the issue.
  The right approach was to allow all the relevant previous convictions to be considered within the context of the seriousness of the offence. That is what my amendment will do. It is a workable solution to the problems of the Act, which will allow courts to imprison but not to imprison unjustly. It will give the courts more discretion than the present section 29, without the defects of the old rule. It will allow the courts to protect the public by sending to prison those who should go to prison.
  The Lord Chief Justice has called sections 1 and 29 misconceived motions. Judges who appeared before the
  324
  Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I am a member, began their evidence by demanding that these provisions should be changed. Only the other day, a judge told me that the effect of the provisions was to turn many courts and their decisions into a shambles.
  The House will be aware that 30 magistrates have resigned in protest. Police officers and lawyers have denounced the new law in the most forceful terms. It is frustrating for police officers, and for the public, to see criminals arrested and brought before the courts, only to find that the courts are forced to do no more than fine them. The courts release them due to the Criminal Justice Act. The Act has more regard for inmates of overcrowded prisons than it has for the victims of crime on council housing estates, for example.
  I know that many Conservative Members were elected in the belief that a Conservative Government would be tougher on crime. I suspect that it must be galling for them that Labour can criticise the Cabinet for presiding over a doubling of crime, and for passing the most liberal piece of legislation on crime in the form of a Criminal Justice Act. The credibility of the Government's policy on law and order is at stake.
  As an Opposition Member, it gives me no great pleasure to say that the Government are weak on law and order—well, perhaps a little pleasure. I know that it is the people who are the victims of this weakness. My constituents, for example, are the victims of increasing burglaries, car thefts and vandalism—crimes which are sometimes committed by criminals who were saved from prison by the Criminal Justice Act.
  The Home Secretary has said that he will revisit the Act. He gives no date and we cannot afford to spare him the time, during which criminals who deserve to go to prison will be protected from prison. This is a time for urgent action, not prevarication. While the Home Secretary consults, debates, prevaricates and waits, victims of crime will suffer. As I have said, the Bill could be enacted quickly. It is designed to protect the victims of criminals, criminals who should have been sent to prison within the terms of the Criminal Justice Act, but were not. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mr. Stephen Byers, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Jimmy Boyce and Mr. Paddy Tipping.

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE (AMENDMENT) (No. 2)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien accordingly presented a Bill to amend sections 1 and 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to enable the Courts to take account of relevant factors when dealing with custodial sentences and related matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 May, and to be printed. [Bill 184.]

  Chairman of Ways and Means (Ruling)
  Madam Speaker: It will help the House to know that I have not selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley).
  3.42 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: I beg to move,
  That this House regrets that the Chairman of Ways and Means, having selected Amendment 27 to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which has support from honourable Members on both sides of the House, having called a Right honourable Member to speak on that amendment, and having allowed a debate upon it to take place, should then have decided, contrary to normal practice, not to permit a division to take place upon that amendment, thus denying the House an opportunity to reach a decision on an issue relating to the applicability of the Protocol on Social Policy contained in the Maastricht Treaty, a protocol which Her Majesty's Government held to be so important that it sought and obtained a special opt-out from it for the United Kingdom; and, in the light of these considerations, and the long term significance of this ruling for parliamentary debates on all future legislation, calls upon the Chairman of Ways and Means to reconsider his ruling forthwith, and to permit the Committee to reach a decision on that amendment.
  First, I wish to make it clear that the motion is supported by 80 hon. Members who represent opinion in all parts of the House. It represents the only way in which the House can register its opinion of a decision of the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is not possible to appeal to Madam Speaker in respect of decisions taken by the Chairman.
  Those of us who have signed the motion believe that it is a profoundly mistaken ruling and that the statement made by the Chairman has the most serious implications for the rights of hon. Members and their constituents in the future. It relates solely and simply to that one ruling, and invites the House to ask the Chairman of Ways and Means to reconsider it. It is nothing more than that. It is not a motion of censure on the Chairman of Ways and Means, who is widely respected by hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially for the way in which he has chaired the debates on the Bill.
  I shall never forget that, at the outset of the Committee stage, the Chairman invited me and other interested Members to go to his room so that he could hear our points of view and explain his approach. I have never in my life known that to happen in connection with any Bill going into Committee. The motion is therefore nothing whatever to do with his impartiality; it is a question of his judgment in this one ruling.
  Sir David Steel: Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to correct his opening statement that the motion that he has moved has support in all parts of the House? That is not true.
  Mr. Benn: It depends whether one is speaking geographically or in terms of political parties. Geographically, it has support from all sides.
  This is a motion for the House as a whole to consider. It is not, and should not be seen as, a matter of party controversy, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) has not applied a whip to members of his party to prevent them from supporting the motion.
  326
  This motion is exactly the same as an appeal to an appeal court in order to consider a judgment from a lower court. It follows closely a similar motion moved by Sir Elwyn Jones in 1972, when the House was debating the European Communities Bill. The issue then related to rulings by the then Chairman about his selection of amendments to the Bill. In moving the motion, Sir Elwyn—later the Lord Chancellor—said this—
  Mr. Michael Spicer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Benn: Certainly.
  Mr. Spicer: I am most grateful. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who share many of the anxieties that he has in this matter, will not be voting with him on the motion—not only out of respect for the Chair but also because we believe that the fault for this issue very largely lies with hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench? They have been consistently tabling new clauses which are seen to be substitutes for amendment No. 27. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not push the motion to a vote at the end of the day.
  Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has not heard the case yet. If he has already reached a view on the basis of a few introductory words, it gives an indication, as civil servants would say, of the way his mind is moving. He should hear the argument before reaching a final view.
  When Sir Elwyn Jones moved his motion of censure against Sir Robert Grant-Ferris—who was as popular as the present Chairman of Ways and Means—this is what he said:
  "The Chairman's interpretation of the rules of order therefore is quite crucial to the whole role and function of Parliament and this House in its consideration of this historic and unprecedented Bill."
  That was the European Communities Bill.
  "The Chairman himself rightly described it yesterday as one of the most fundamental and important Bills which have ever been before the House of Commons. If the Ruling stands unamended and unqualified by subsequent action, it will as a matter of order muzzle proper consideration and decision by this House on a Bill which, if it becomes law, will restrict the power of Parliament to debate and resolve: first, questions vital to the finances and economy of our country; secondly, important changes in our law; thirdly, the control by the House over public expenditure; fourthly, restrictions which will be placed on the rights and powers of our courts of law —matters which affect every subject in the land.
  If as a matter of order Parliament can be so circumscribed that important Amendments which the Opposition have tabled cannot be made debatable, the consequence will be to reduce the role of this House in the consideration of the issues raised by this momentous Bill to discussion merely of the comparatively trivial and superficial."—[Official Report, 1 March 1972; Vol. 832, c. 434–35.]
  Mr. Tom King: Is there not an essential difference between this Bill and the right hon. Gentleman's analogy? He knows that no amendments were made to the European Communities Bill, and that there was no Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman says that there should be an opportunity for appeal to another court. One reason why a number of us find the motion deeply offensive is that the right hon. Gentleman knows that he has another opportunity to make his arguments without seeking to impugn the impartiality and judgment of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  Mr. Benn: On the latter point, I have made it absolutely clear that I am not impugning the impartiality of the Chairman of Ways and Means. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not. I gave the Chairman a copy of the speech that I am making so that he could read it in advance of the debate. I am making the point that the only way in which the House can query the judgment of a Chairman or Of the Speaker is to table a motion. It is absurd to say that that is impugning the impartiality of the Chair. As the right hon. Gentleman will learn, if he allows me to finish my speech, the issue is very similar to the one in 1972.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman listed the apocalyptic consequences which Sir Elwyn saw if the Chairman's ruling was upheld. The Chairman's ruling was upheld. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that those consequences followed?
  Mr. Benn: If the hon. Gentleman, who is a passionate supporter of the European Community, does not realise that everything that was said by Elwyn Jones was correct in terms of the superior power of Community law over European law, which is what that Bill was all about, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has followed the debates on issues to which he is so committed. Perhaps that is why he was able to support earlier legislation on this matter.
  This debate is not about the merits of amendment No. 27 but about the right of the House to reach a decision upon it. It is not about the merits of the social chapter, or the protocol on social policy, but about the right of the House to give its judgment upon it. It is not about the merits of the Bill itself, or of the Maastricht treaty, but about whether the House should be able to amend it in one important respect.
  I do not intend to dwell in great detail on the issue, apart from saying that the social chapter is a very important part of the agreement that was reached by the other 11 member states. It is an issue to which the Government, as my motion makes clear, are opposed. They wish to be at the heart of everything in Europe, except social policy.
  According to article 1 of the social protocol agreement of the treaty on European union,
  "The Community and the Member States shall have as their objectives the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions, proper social protection, dialogue between management and labour, the development of human resources with a view to lasting high unemployment and the combatting of exclusion. To this end the Community and the Member States shall implement measures which take account of diverse forms of national practices, in particular in the field of contractual relations, and the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Community economies."
  The social chapter—I list the headings only—deals with the improvement of the working environment to protect workers' health and safety; working conditions; the information and consultation of workers; equality between men and women with regard to labour market opportunities so as to ensure that each member state shall maintain the principle of equal pay for male and female workers; social security and social protection of workers; protection of workers where their employment contract is terminated; representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers; conditions of employment, and so on.
  328
  It is a very important protocol. The Government are determined to prevent it from applying to this country. I do not comment upon its merits, but it is an issue so important to the Government that they persuaded the other 11 member states to let them off having to apply it. That is the Government's position. The Opposition's position, by contrast, is that my right hon. Friends attach great importance to the social chapter. I do not even comment at this point on whether they are right or wrong, but there can be no dispute that that is what the party of which I am a member wants.
  When the Chairman of Ways and Means called a group of amendments which was headed by amendment No. 7 and which contained amendment No. 27, he knew perfectly well that that was the occasion on which these great issues would be debated. On 20 January, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said:
  "Amendment No. 7 is a probing amendment which we intend ultimately to withdraw … I shall address my remarks to amendment No. 27 on which, in due course, we shall press the Committee to a vote."
  He then read out amendment No. 27, which would, of course, change the relationship.
  We now come to the nub of the matter, because we are talking about an important parliamentary difference of opinion which is not able to be resolved by voting on amendment No. 27. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland also said:
  "The Bill excludes Britain from provisions which our 11 partners have agreed to facilitate greater protection for employed people in their working conditions, better rights of consultation and information, equality of treatment and opportunity for men and women, and the integration into the labour force of long-term unemployed people, including disabled workers."
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), then made an important statement. He said:
  "The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under the terms of the amendment, United Kingdom law would not conform to the treaty's provisions, so it would be impossible for the United Kingdom to ratify that treaty".
  My right hon. Friend responded at once, as I would have expected. He said:
  "I … willingly explain … As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, I would not move the amendment on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and my other hon. Friends if we did not fully understand its implications. Those implications would be to remove the protocol on social policy, which refers to the exclusion of the social chapter from the treaty. That would require Her Majesty's Government to negotiate with the other 11 Community members … Of course, I recognise that that would present Her Majesty's Government with a dilemma, but we have taken the precaution to check that the other 11 member states would be happy for that outcome to obtain." —[Official Report, 20 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 402–03.]
  One cannot imagine a more fundamental question.
  We now come to the Chairman's latest ruling. On Thursday last week, he said:
  "to be selectable for a separate Division the purport of an amendment needs to have been substantially covered during the course of the debate on the group in which it has been included."—[Official Report, 15 April 1993; Vol. 222, c. 961.]
  Amendment No. 27 was the main debate, and no one can honestly believe that amendment No. 27 passed almost unnoticed in a clutch of amendments about the social chapter.

  329
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, ever quick to point to the importance of what had been announced by the Chairman, replied using stronger language than I would use. He said:
  "Many people far beyond the confines of the Chamber will feel that the House of Commons has been cheated of a legitimate reason to have a vote. I do not use that word lightly, but because I am singularly unconvinced—I believe that the majority of the House is unconvinced—about the reasons for your decision."—[Official Report, 15 April 1993; Vol. 222, c. 963.]
  This is a major issue, a major ruling which prevents a vote, and a clear statement by my right hon. Friend that it is his view and that of others that the House has been cheated.
  On Monday, again offering to be helpful—he has genuinely aimed to be helpful throughout—the Chairman made a further statement. I shall not say "reasons" because Chairmen do not give reasons. He said—this is the nub of the motion:
  "the Chair must have regard to a number of factors, including the Committee's debates, the clarity of effect of an amendment, and its impact on the Bill which, if brought into effect, must be both workable and understandable."— [Official Report, 19 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 39.]
  If we do not challenge that ruling, the terms "workable" and "understandable"—as I hope to show—will remain in the rules of the House for all time and all Bills. How can I tell the electorate in Chesterfield and people who want the Bill but with the social chapter that they cannot vote on it because the Chairman of Ways and Means says that an amendment that would bring Britain into line with every other country is not workable or understandable? It is the most workable and most understandable amendment that one could find; it is the one that 11 other countries in the Community have accepted. That is the difficulty.
  Mr. Ray Whitney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Benn: If the hon. Gentleman insists, but I do not want to detain the House for too long.
  Mr. Whitney: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He is making great play of the importance of adhesion to the social chapter. Why does the fact that the House will have a chance to vote on the social chapter on new clause 74 not satisfy his keen interest in the subject?
  Mr. Benn: I am trying to avoid dwelling on the merits of the argument in order to concentrate on the parliamentary aspects of the matter. What should happen when the leader of a major Opposition party puts his name at the head of an amendment which is accepted by the Chair, and the party spokesman begins by saying that he will concentrate solely on that amendment? There are masses of ways of dealing with every issue, but that was the one chosen by the Opposition party.
  Before I deal with the long-term implications, I shall consider briefly the arguments against voting. One, which has been repeated by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), is that the motion would somehow require the Chairman to resign, because it would impugn his impartiality. The argument has nothing to do with that. It is about three words that the Chairman used—"workable and understandable".
  330
  It is also said that a vote would not work because part of the Bill has already been passed. That is the point raised by my right hon. Friend the deputy leader of the Labour party last night. But if the motion is read carefully, it will be seen that it asks "the Chairman … to reconsider … forthwith".
  It would be perfectly easy to find a procedural motion to put the matter back in its proper place in the Bill. I am afraid that, if the House votes against our motion, that will make it harder for Madam Speaker to select the same issue on Report. The argument would be put to her that the House had had a chance to reconsider and had rejected it.
  Now I come to the wider questions which ought to concern people, and which go well beyond their interest in the Maastricht Bill. The real issue is that, if we leave the ruling in the record, the Chairman will have to consider every amendment to every Bill to decide whether it was "workable and understandable".
  With the best will in the world, how does a Chairman know what is workable and understandable, unless he asks the Minister? He will say, "I have an amendment here, Secretary of State. Is it workable?" The Secretary of State will say, "I shall ask my civil servants," or he may say, "I shall ask the Law Officers—and I shall tell you whichever of the two judgments they give me suits me best." The Chairman of Ways and Means cannot decide whether an amendment is workable and understandable, so the ruling puts him at the mercy of the Executive—but the Chairman is our man, not the servant of the Government. That is the issue.
  I might add that, if the Speaker of the House of Commons would not accept Bills that were not workable and understandable, a lot of legislation would not have gone through the House at all, including the poll tax legislation and some legislation on pay and other matters introduced by my right hon. Friends—but I shall not go into that now.
  The Clerks are like elephants; they never forget. They have already noted the Chairman's ruling. I dug out my "Erskine May"—I have had a copy ever since I was first elected—and page 187 of the current edition says:
  "The Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman has final authority over all points of order arising when he is in the chair and there is no appeal from his ruling to the Speaker."
  The Clerk of the House will add a bit to that, in the next edition, which will say, "The Chairman will not allow a vote on any amendment that is not 'workable and understandable'." I do not want to see that written into the rules of the House, because it will affect the Liberal party. After all, most of the Liberals' proposals are neither understandable nor workable, so I confidently expect to have them with me in the Lobby.
  It is the minority Members who are affected. After all, it is an official Opposition amendment that has been rejected. What about little parties, tiny parties and minuscule parties? What about Back Benchers? What chance have they of persuading the Chairman, under the influence of the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General, that their little amendment is workable and understandable?
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Benn: Yes, of course I shall, especially in the light of the hon. Gentleman's intervention yesterday.
  Mr. Kirkwood: If the right hon. Gentleman is successful in browbeating the Chairman of Ways and Means into doing what he thinks is not right, does he believe that using majority power in the House to affect the decision of the Chair is in the interest of minority parties?
  Mr. Benn: If I ever had the power to browbeat the Chairman or anyone else, I might have been tempted to do that. I am inviting the House to do what it does every day —to reach a judgment on whether it agrees with a proposal that is before it. I do not know what ideas the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has about how Parliament should be resolved. However, if he does not want majorities to decide, the place should be packed up and given over—[Interruption.] Elections determine the majority and minority parties.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: This is a serious point, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman will treat it as such. If it is the right hon. Gentleman's case that majorities should always decide what amendments are selected, in normal circumstances that means that the Government will decide every amendment that comes before the House.
  Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is assuming that the Chairman is not independent. The purpose in my proposal is to keep him independent. The House cannot close a debate without a vote, but it is prepared to give the Chairman the right to deny a vote without support. That is the point and the issue.
  I know that the atmosphere is highly charged, that the media claim that we are Euro-sceptics and that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has suddenly become a Euro-sceptic because he believes that this is an important parliamentary point. It is an important parliamentary point. In my opinion, it will damage the understanding of our proceedings among the people we represent. With the best will in the world—I have touched on it already—I cannot explain to people outside who want the social chapter to apply in Britain why one Member of the House, the Chairman, can say that it was not workable or understandable.
  I am an old parliamentarian. I once moved a motion of this character because the Speaker refused me an emergency debate when military action was contemplated in Oman. I know that, for many hon. Members, procedure is dull and irrelevant. However, I believe that democracy is about procedure. It is not about what we decide, but about how we decide it. That is what the whole democratic argument is about.
  Perhaps I am a sentimentalist, but I deeply believe that we have one responsibility above all others, and that is to pass on to those who come after us a decent democratic machinery which can be used by them as we have used it. That democratic machinery allows us to table amendments and have them considered, voted upon and so on.
  I finish as I did 35 years ago, when I moved a similar motion against Mr. Speaker Morrison. When all the speeches are forgotten, when the election manifestos are in the British Library, when the Queen's Speeches have disappeared and the Bills have been repealed, "Erskine May" is what this place is about, because it gives us the machinery to decide what we were elected to do. If that is denied by an error of judgment—no more than that—by a Chairman, I think that we shall pay a heavy price for it in future.
  4.7 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I hope it will be thought right, Madam Speaker, that I should rise at once to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and to set out some of the considerations which I believe the House should have in mind in judging what he has said and the motion he has brought before the House.
  I do not think that I need to make a long speech, because it seems to me that the central issue is simple and clear: it is the issue of the authority of the Chair, and therefore its capacity to discharge effectively, on behalf of the House as a whole—not least the minority parties—the difficult task which the House as a whole has laid on it.
  I note, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to resist that suggestion, but I must say frankly that I do not think he has done so successfully. Nor do I think he can, because in signalling the appearance of this motion, he could not have made his intention clearer, when he asked the Chairman:
  "If a motion of this kind is tabled, may I take it that you would not feel able to take the Chair of the Committee until the matter was resolved?"—[Official Report, 19 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 41.]
  Against that background, no amount of disclaimer, in whatever measured language, can alter the basic fact that the effect, and the intended effect, of this motion is to render it impossible for the Chairman to perform the duties that the House has laid on him unless and until it is defeated or withdrawn. As I said, that is the central issue which the House must resolve—whether it is to sustain the authority of the Chair to do its job.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am surprised by the line that the right hon. Gentleman is taking. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) used words which are his. Is the Leader of the House saying that, on that Monday when we pursued points of order and had a debate, there was no difference whatever in the accession of the Chair to what we were putting to him or his attitude to us? I put it to the right hon. Gentleman—he was not here, as many hon. Members were not here—that that was no different, because we respect the authority of the Chair in general. It is a matter of judgment on a single issue.
  Mr. Newton: I do not accept that for a moment. Although I was not present throughout, I have carefully studied the lengthy points of order that were raised not only on Monday but on other occasions. If I may say so, the Chairman has listened and responded to those points of order with great care and courtesy.
  There is the world of difference between legitimately putting points of order to the Chairman, albeit over a long period, and tabling a motion of this sort, which is, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield made absolutely clear in his remarks on Monday, intended to make it impossible for the Chairman to function as the Chairman unless it has been disposed of.
  Before I return to that matter, I should say something about the motion. I realise that, in many ways, it is not the central issue. Apart from anything else, it seems to reflect some misapprehension about the procedures of the House with respect to the selection of amendments. I think that this will be common ground.
  Standing Order No. 31 is clear: in the Committee of the whole House, the Chairman is given the power—the right

  333
  hon. Gentleman fairly said that it is an entirely unfettered power—to select the amendments, new clauses or new schedules to be proposed. That is understood. However, it seemed to render fairly meaningless the right hon. Gentleman's efforts to present his motion as some form of appeal or exercise of appeal rights. If he wishes to institute a right of appeal he should seek to change the Standing Order rather than table motions that criticise the Chair.
  Mr. William Cash: Can my right hon. Friend tell me where Standing Order No. 31 gives the right certainly with respect to the selection of amendments and with it the right to choose whether a Division will take place? On page 405 of "Erskine May" and the sub-notes, can he tell me where the practice which has grown up is set out as to the question whether a specific matter should be subjected to a Division? If he would be good enough to do that, I would be interested to hear his comments.
  Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is accepting what I said about Standing Order No. 31, which I shall read to him if he wishes. Sub-section (2) of that Standing Order is absolutely clear:
  "In committee of the whole House, the Chairman of Ways and Means and either Deputy Chairman shall have the like power"—
  to the Speaker in other circumstances—
  "to select the amendments, new clauses or new schedules to be proposed".
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield also quoted from page 405 of "Erskine May":
  "It is a common practice to allow several amendments to be discussed together, although they have not all been selected to be moved. The Speaker or chairman may at his discretion call for division one or more of those amendments selected for debate with another or other amendments, if requested to do so."
  The key words are "at his discretion".
  Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Newton: No, I will not give way for the moment.
  What seems less clear to some, to judge both from the terms of the motion and some of the points of order made recently, is that the power of selection is separate from what the Chairman does when he groups amendments for debate. When he groups amendments, he calls the lead amendment—that is, he selects it under the provisions of Standing Order No. 31—and tells the Committee that, for the convenience of debate, he will allow the discussion of other amendments appearing later on the Order Paper.
  Thus, when the right hon. Gentleman said that the Chairman of Ways and Means had selected amendment No. 27, that was not strictly the case. As I have just said, the occupant of the Chair selects an amendment when he calls an hon. Member to move it so that the House or Committee can take a decision on it. Amendment No. 27 has not been moved: it was grouped for debate with another amendment on which the Committee has voted.
  Nor is it correct to say, as the motion does, that it was contrary to the normal practice not to allow a Division to take place on an amendment which has been debated. Many amendments are grouped for debate with selected amendments; whether they are subsequently selected for a
  334
  separate Division is a matter for the discretion of the Chair, as is clear from the extract that I have just quoted from "Erskine May". There is nothing automatic about it.
  So when the right hon. Member for Chesterfield claims that the Chair's ruling has some great long-term significance for parliamentary debates on all future legislation, his argument simply does not stand up. The exercise of the Chairman's discretion in respect of amendment No. 27 has been entirely in accordance with the practice of the House, and his ruling has no long-term significance of the nature that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Benn: If what the Leader of the House says is to be accepted, the Chairman could have given a simple answer. He could have said, "I will not allow a vote on the amendment. I did not select it." But he did not say that. He said that the amendment was not understandable or workable. That is the difficulty, because "Erskine May" makes it clear that the Speaker or Chairman does not give reasons. I can understand the reason why they do not give reasons. The reasons given in this case were wholly different from the ones which the Leader of the House has cooked up to resist the motion.
  Mr. Newton: These are not arguments that I have cooked up, but ones on which I have taken careful advice. They represent a straightforward description, as I understand it and as I am advised, of the procedural position in respect of the amendment.
  I should make just one other point about the motion. It is the one brought out by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the deputy Leader of the Opposition, in her intervention during my business statement yesterday, and acknowledged by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield today. It is the simple fact that, because the Committee has finished with the clauses of the Bill and is dealing with the new clauses, it is not possible for the Chairman to do as the motion asks. Indeed, amendment No. 27 has disappeared from the amendment paper.
  The whole House knows that it is not the technicalities that are at issue here: it is the fundamental purpose and effect of the motion to which I referred earlier. The House has placed on the Chairman difficult and demanding responsibilities, within terms of reference which the House itself has determined. It has asked him to undertake those responsibilities during proceedings as difficult as any a Chairman has had to face for a long time.
  For my part, I will say simply that, on all I have heard, seen and read in Hansard of those proceedings, he has exercised his responsibilities, whether in selecting and grouping amendments, listening and responding to many representations and innumerable points of order, or simply presiding over debate, with great care, great diligence and courtesy.
  It is not a question whether any or all of us have liked each and every decision. The Chairman's is in some ways a role which produces a variant of one of the oldest political adages: it is a job in which you cannot please anyone all the time. There have been decisions unpalatable to those who want the social chapter and decisions unpalatable to those who do not. There have been decisions unpalatable to those who strongly support the Bill—
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Leader of the House give way?
  Mr. Newton: No, I will not give way for the moment —and decisions unpalatable to those who vigorously oppose it. That is the nature of the job. As the Chairman himself put it in responding to a point of order on Monday:
  "I must and do take every factor into consideration, but at the end of the day the buck stops here: I have to choose the amendments."—[Official Report, 19 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 44.]
  The point could not have been put better than it was by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) yesterday. He said that the motion sought to establish a dangerous precedent for the House, would have serious implications for the Chair, and is highly unfair to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who has conducted himself with good humour and tolerance.
  The question for the House is whether it will reject the challenge which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield has mounted to the support which the Chairman is entitled to expect, both when we like his decisions and when we do not. If the motion is not withdrawn, as it should be, I urge the House to reject it, and reject it decisively.
  4.19 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: All of us in the House are conscious of the importance of the relationship, balanced as it is between conflict and confidence, that exists between the House and the Chair. As the Leader of the House has just acknowledged, there cannot be an hon. Member here who has not, from time to time, disagreed with a decision of the Chair, even if it is only that the hon. Member believes that the occupant of the Chair has failed to recognise that the debate in hand would be immeasurably enriched by his or her contribution. Equally, every Member recognises the good faith and integrity that the occupants of the Chair bring to their onerous and difficult duties, and the extent to which those duties place them at the centre of the storm when difficult and contentious decisions arise. One such decision and one such ruling is cited in the motion that we are debating.
  The whole House and many in the country are well aware that the announcement that there would not be an opportunity for the Committee to vote on amendment No. 27 on the social chapter has caused widespread concern on both sides. Thai concern was fully expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the shadow Foreign Secretary, when the ruling was first given on 30 March. You, Madam Speaker, and the House will recall that further concern was expressed at length in our debates on 15 April and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland moved on that day to report progress on the Bill so that a sustained debate could be held in which our grave concern could be—and was—fully expressed.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland made it clear then, and we have repeatedly sought to make it clear since, that we are still seeking and will continue to seek an opportunity to vote on amendment No. 27 before the Bill completes all the stages of its passage through the House. We look for the opportunity for that vote on the Report stage of the Bill, on which decisions have yet to be made.
  336
  With all respect to the care and devotion shown by the Chairman of Ways and Means in his conduct of the Committee stage, which we do not criticize—I was pleased by the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) when he moved the motion—we do not accept that amendment No. 27 and new clauses 74 or 75 are alternatives. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland explicitly made that case, as can be seen in Hansard. He said:
  "I do not regard new clause 74"—
  or 75—
  "as an alternative to amendment No. 27, nor do I believe that it can be reasonably or realistically posed in those terms." —[Official Report, 19 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 39.]
  Sir David Steel: Will the right hon. Lady clear up one point? When he moved the motion, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) did not refer to the narrative of how new clauses 74 and 75 appeared on the amendment paper. If the Opposition were so confident of amendment No. 27, why did they table the two new clauses?
  Mrs. Beckett: If the right hon. Gentleman had been attending the debates, I am sure that he would know the answer to that question, which is that we regard the subjects covered in the amendment and the new clauses as entirely separate issues. I shall return to that issue later. We believe that the new clauses and the amendment are complementary.
  Concern has been expressed that a precedent might be set by the handling of amendment No. 27. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield referred a number of times to the use of the words "workable and acceptable". We can all understand that there might be concern about the juxtaposition of a vote on amendment No. 27 and new clause 75. I am not suggesting that that was the reason for the ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means, because, as we all know, for reasons that we all understand, the Chair does not give reasons for his or her decisions.
  However, the argument might have been considered whereby it was thought that if amendment No. 27 were carried—removing the social protocol—it might remove the occasion for a vote on new clause 75. I can well understand that concern. However, we remain of the view that it would have been quite practical and possible for amendment No. 27 and new clause 75 to be debated separately, and that the one did not require a different decision from the other.
  Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend rightly said that the Chair does not normally give reasons, but part of the trouble is that the Chairman of Ways and Means, wisely or not, appeared on the Scottish television programme, "Scottish Lobby" on 18 April and gave his reasons. I quote from his script:
  "And just on balance, because it was slightly more workable, I chose to have the debate on new clause 75."
  This may be part of the hazard of the Chairman going on television, but a reason was given.
  Mrs. Beckett: I would not criticise the Chairman of Ways and Means for his remarks which were no doubt intended to elucidate for the viewer what on earth it is we are going on about in here. I well understand his difficulty in doing so without straying into the territory that my hon. Friend has quoted. However, it would not be right for us to suggest, and I am sure that my hon. Friend did not

  337
  mean to do so, that the Chairman had strayed into giving reasons, as that would be a precedent and we all recognise that such a precedent should be avoided.
  The Leader of the House said that the motion was not about the technicalities of the issue. I take his point, but he went on to defend at length the judgment that has been made on the vote on amendment No. 27. I must therefore say to him and to the House that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland made crystal clear from the Front Bench on behalf of the official Opposition on 19 April, we have not accepted that an amendment that is in order, has been debated and has the official backing of the Opposition—it is tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition—should not be available for decision in the Committee. We do not accept that such a precedent has been set.
  We had every reason to expect that there would be a Division. The Chairman of Ways and Means said in Committee:
  "We are some way off a vote on amendment No. 27."— [Official Report, 22 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 685]
  That carries the connotation that there would be a Division and at that stage no one expected that there would not be a Division on amendment No. 27. He then suggested on television on 18 April that a Division on the amendment might have been expected at one stage. That is the real significance that we attach to the Chairman's remark. It immeasurably strengthens the case for a vote on amendment No. 27 on Report, which is perhaps a way of tidying up this extremely difficult matter.
  As was identified yesterday and reiterated by the Leader of the House today, we cannot now proceed, whether or not it is desirable, in the manner proposed by the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. "Erskine May" makes it absolutely plain on page 496 that once the Chairman has put the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill—and the Question was put on Monday—
  "No other amendment can be proposed to a clause after this question has been proposed from the Chair."
  My right hon. Friend suggested that some procedural method might be found, but he also suggested that we should take "Erskine May" as our bible and "Erskine May" leaves us in no doubt on the matter. That means that the question of an understanding approach to the desire of a majority in the House to decide on amendment No. 27 on Report—we know that there is a majority in the House, because otherwise we would not be having all this difficulty today—must inform our debate and decision.
  That brings me to my final point which I hope will be borne in mind, especially by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) sought to place the blame for these difficulties at the door of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had incredible nerve. The scale of the difficulties faced by the Chairman of Ways and Means is the Government's creation.
  It was the Government who claimed that amendment No.27 would wreck the Bill and the treaty. It was they who then claimed that, on the contrary, it would make no difference. It was they who brought in the Attorney-General, who failed to answer fully half the questions put
  338
  to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), to tell us that this was all of no significance. It was the Government, in the shape of the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who went about their usual business of placing ideas in the minds of the Lobby and everyone else to the effect that the Opposition must find another way of raising these issues. And then the Government have the nerve to come to the House and ask why we sought to find other ways to raise them.
  Sir David Steel: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman once and I have answered his point. I am almost at the end of my remarks and I do not want to take up too much time. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Madam Speaker, and be able to make his own speech.
  It is the Government, too, who, since the other new clauses have been tabled, have not only continued to cast doubt on the validity of a vote on amendment No. 27 but have claimed that every other amendment or new clause tabled by the Opposition is in some way ineffective. I am certain that it is not the desire of the Chair, but it is most certainly the desire of the Government, to prevent the House from reaching a decision on the social chapter or, if they cannot prevent it, to find a way of discounting or ignoring it. Their manoeuvrings are the direct cause of the difficulties that have understandably been experienced by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  For that reason, because we cannot do what the motion suggests, because the opportunity to vote on amendment No. 27 is not yet completely lost to us, and because of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield about the respect in which the Chairman of Ways and Means is held in every part of the House, I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will follow the usual precedent once concerns of this nature have been aired in debate in the Chamber. I must tell the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) that these concerns have been aired on a number of occasions before—by the official Opposition when the Conservative party was the Opposition, by ourselves, and by Back Bench Members on both sides of the House. The phenomenon is not unknown, but usually when such concerns have been aired and such a debate has been held, the motion is either withdrawn or negated by voice only and not pressed to a Division.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield told the House that the only way to bring the matter before the House and to express concern was to table the motion. That is his view; it may or may not be the view of all Members. Unquestionably, however, he is not required to press the motion to a Division because he has brought it before the House, and I hope that he will not do so. If he chooses to do so, I must tell him that I will advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask you to rule on a matter? I regret having to do so, but you are the only person in a position to make such a ruling.
  All three speakers so far have referred to a Report stage for the Bill. I want you to rule on whether the Report stage of a Bill that has been considered in a Committee of the whole House is different from the Report stage of a Bill considered in a normal Standing Committee. In past years,

  339
  I have moved more amendments in Committee that have been found to be defective than I have had hot dinners, but subsequently I have been able to find opportunities on Report to raise exactly the same issues.
  For the avoidance of doubt, can you tell us whether the procedures are any different? Does the content of amendment No. 27—whether the wording is the same does not matter—mean that we are precluded from considering such an amendment on Report? It could only be selected by you, Madam Speaker, so it is only you who can give the ruling. Does the fact that the Bill has been considered on the Floor of the House prevent the House from coming to a conclusion on the precise contents of amendment No. 27?
  Madam Speaker: The whole situation and the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman are very hypothetical. In order not to leave the House in any doubt, I will make no ruling whatever. I will determine it when these matters are put before me at the appropriate time.
  4.34 pm
  Mr. Roger Knapman: I listened with care to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). If I heard her correctly, she said that she was actively looking for other ways of dealing with the matter than amendment No. 27. I suspect some of us can understand why.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House quoted extensively from pages 404 and 405 of the procedural book, "Erskine May". Unfortunately, he finished at the end of the second paragraph on page 405, whereas to me the most important point is at the beginning of the third paragraph:
  "Selection is made by the Chair in such a way as to bring out the salient points of criticism".
  Therein for me lies the difficulty.
  May I draw the attention of the House to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, hardly as long as the 63,500 words of the treaty, and to something which does not normally get much attention, the explanatory memorandum which says:
  "The Bill will have no direct financial effect in the United Kingdom."
  I invite the House to reflect on whether that is so. I suspect that it is not true and never has been. Only amendment No. 27 bears on the matter.
  My constituents in Stroud will be obliged, through VAT, to pay moneys to the advantage of countries which are presumed to have the benefit of the social chapter. In short, my constituents in Stroud will, through VAT, push money across to Sicily, Sardinia or other areas which are regarded as suffering poverty.
  Many people say that there is an opt-out from the social chapter. What we mean is that we are giving the other 11 nations the opportunity to have a social chapter because they believe that it is in their interests. Perhaps the two great lies in the debate are, first, that opt-outs mean very much and, secondly, that if we do not have Maastricht we will not get inward investment. Perhaps the opt-out will be effective but by the time we have seen article 100A, on majority voting, and by the time that we have looked at health and safety legislation, and, most of all, the European Court of Justice, our opt-out may not be as effective as many think. Only amendment No. 27 addresses those points. If it is not called, we will get no opportunity to make our view known on behalf of our constituents.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: I am sympathetic to many of the views which my hon. Friend has expressed in the House in recent weeks. Can he explain why the issue cannot be raised on Report?
  Mr. Knapman: May I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the fact that there is a movement towards new clauses 74 and 75? No doubt we shall be asked to look at new clauses which have not yet even been framed. The debate will be at a later stage. Therefore, there is little chance of amendment No. 27 being called by Madam Speaker at the appropriate time; of course, Madam Speaker, that will be a matter for you.
  New clause 74 says:
  "This Act shall come into force only when the House of Commons has come to a Resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown".
  At this stage we have no idea what that motion might say.
  The motion is not to me a form of challenge to authority. I speak as one who has been here for the 21 days of Committee proceedings. It is encouraging that the longer we carry on debating the Maastricht treaty, the more hon. Members are here.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: New clause 74 says that the powers of the legislation shall not take effect until there has been a debate on the social chapter. If the new clause is accepted in Committee, does not that make it difficult for the Chair to accept amendment No. 27 on Report? Is not that the problem?
  Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend is exactly right. That must be so, and it was among the points that I was trying to make.
  I promised in my note to you this morning, Madam Speaker, that I would not detain the House for more than one or two minutes. You will know that the whole House holds you in the greatest respect because we know that you are the guardian of Back Benchers' interests. My constituents are being asked, probably for the first time, to have their taxes sent abroad—I still feel that Sicily and Sardinia are abroad—at the very time when our county council is short of money for education. The matter is important and I want an opportunity to vote on it. Unless my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can contradict me, I say that amendment No. 27 is the only one that deals with that matter.
  4.40 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: I shall begin with five short general observations which will enable my subsequent specific comments to be even briefer. The way in which the House deals with treaties may certainly be defective. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) often draws attention to that in his not infrequent comments and criticisms of the Crown prerogative. However, that is not one of the responsibilities of the Chairman of Ways and Means, Who must handle debates according to the rules as they are. Neither do I understand it to be an objective of the Labour party to change those rules, although since that party is in an evolutionary phase my information on that may be dated.
  Yesterday and today the right hon. Member for Chesterfield compared his motion with that moved by the late Sir Elwyn Jones in 1972 and said that it was,
  "supported by all Opposition Members."—[Official Report, 20 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 184.]

  341
  The right hon. Gentleman's memory is faulty. If he consults the Division lists for 1 and 6 March 1972 he will find my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Liberal party. We voted against such motions and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who was then the Whip of the Liberal party, spoke against it at that time. At that time his constituency was Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles.
  Thirdly, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said that the Chairman of Ways and Means gave an interview on 18 April on the "Scottish Lobby" programme. However, I think that the interview was on 3 April. I have a transcript, which seems bland and inoffensive. He gave that interview with the best of intentions. However, I think that, while it is accepted on all sides that a Chairman or, indeed, you, Madam Speaker, should not have to give reasons for decisions because of the inevitable disputation that will follow, television, radio and press in-depth probing interviews should not be taken up but left to other hon. Members who are not subject to such inhibitions.
  A long time ago the late Horace King "ignited" the Blackpool illuminations. I did not greatly approve of that and interviews have potentially a much greater detonatory effect. Fourthly, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) gave an interview this morning. It is difficult for me to comment on it because I was in the land of nod when the interview took place and have had to depend on my more wide-awake colleagues to tell me about it.[Interruption.] Perhaps we could ignore the rumbustiousness of some Opposition Front-Bench Members. I am told that the hon. Gentleman said that the Chairman of Ways and Means was in cahoots with the Government on closure motions and that, in the tailoring phrase of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the whole thing was stitched up. My version of the interview may be slightly wrong and if so I will gladly withdraw.
  One could say that I am in a uniquely appropriate position to comment since I have been in cahoots with the Government throughout debate on the Bill on timing and procedure and I know what it is all about. It is not true that the Chairman of Ways and Means is in cahoots with the Government. Throughout the progress of the Bill the timing of closures has been decided solely by the Chairman of Ways and Means according to his judgment of an appropriate time for debate. The Government have known no more about it than anyone else in the House. It is quite wrong for an hon. Member to make such allegations.
  To my sure and certain knowledge, throughout our proceedings in Committee the Chairman has behaved with impeccable impartiality and has given no advance indication of his intentions to any Member that he was unwilling to give to another. I shall give that point the added stress that membership of a minority party allows me to give. We are extremely sensitive to any possibility of collusion between the Chairman and the Government and to the possibility of the Chairman being cavalier in the treatment of minority opinion. The Plant committee, which was established by the Labour party, has again drawn attention to the fact that if our support in the country was reflected in the House we would have more
  342
  than 100 Members. In the light of that, I repeat that the Chairman of Ways and Means has behaved with impeccable impartiality.
  Mr. Knapman: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) which are contained in Monday's record of our proceedings. I can confirm those, as can my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran).
  Sir Russell Johnston: That is a somewhat opaque comment. I regret that at my age instant recall is now denied to me.—[Laughter.]
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As one who suffers from a similar difficulty, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that all the allegations, which he has correctly denied, are entirely hearsay, would not be allowed in the High Court or the lower courts of Scotland, and should not be allowed in the High Court of Parliament. They are a great slight on the Chair.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I note the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. I do not think that he and I have similar problems; we may have parallel problems.
  It is certainly true that the whole Committee could have been handled in a different way. That would have made not only the job of the Chairman less stressful but would have enabled the Committee to have a more engaged, more real, debate.
  I have been taking part in debates on the European Community for two decades. They have reached the stage of a sort of religious disputation in which nobody ever wins. Nevertheless, I have come to respect the consistent opposition of people such as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). His constituency is no longer called Stepney and Poplar. They are minorities, like me. They deserve to be heard and their arguments must be addressed.
  Mr. Michael Lord: Although his memory may not be what it was, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a fair man. Amendment No. 27 has been the most talked about amendment in the debate, and the amendment most discussed in the press and on television. It has been the amendment that Ministers have talked about, and debated on television. Being a fair man, does he not think that it is unreasonable that the House of Commons will not be allowed to vote on an amendment of such importance?
  Sir Russell Johnston: I shall come to that point shortly.
  I was talking about the handling of the Committee. Given its official support for Maastricht, the Labour party should have sat down with the Government and the minority parties and agreed a sensible timetable, and a limitation on speech length. I know that, in Committee, speech length is not normally limited, but it makes no sense for the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) to speak for hours. Apart from anything else, it does not progress the debate in any rational fashion. It was wrong that the Labour party felt unable to do so, mainly because of its Euro-sceptics. While both major parties frequently extol the virtues of the House as a unique example of democracy, they have been guilty of being unwilling to

  343
  reform its procedures to make debate more of a meaningful discussion and less of a pyrotechnic confrontation.
  Mr. George Robertson: This is not perhaps a terribly substantial point, but the hon. Gentleman spoke about the conduct of the Committee, through which I, like him, have sat virtually in its entirety. He made one of the first speeches, on one of the first amendments, and took an hour to do so. Is that the sort of limitation on speech length that he wants?
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his not terribly substantial intervention on my not terribly substantial point. I remind him that on that occasion I gave way to 24 interventions—no wonder the speech took so long.
  The motion is about the refusal of the Chairman of Ways and Means to allow a vote on amendment No. 27. My party argued for a vote on amendment No. 27 because we want the House to vote on whether the United Kingdom should accede to the social chapter of Maastricht. In practice, it has turned out to be difficult to find an appropriate form of words to ensure that. The Attorney-General told us that amendment No. 27 would not have such an effect. Indeed, he said that it would have no effect at all. Presumably, unless we have a vote of no confidence in the Attorney-General—as far as I know no one has suggested that—his decision has to be accepted.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those constitutional experts who are well acquainted with the constitutional usage and practice of the Law Officers of the Crown are deeply disturbed at the way in which the Attorney-General was brought into the argument? If anybody wishes to follow that up, he will find that there are substantial criticisms of the manner in which the Attorney-General was involved. No doubt, in due course, those will emerge.
  Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a limited motion. It deals only with the exercise of the Chair's discretion on amendment No. 27. I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who has the Floor of the House, and any others who are called to speak in the debate will limit their comments to the expressions in the motion before us.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker. I will leave what the hon. Member for Stafford has said, apart from saying that I have met few constitutional experts who do not spend most of the time being disturbed.
  We are left with the judgment of the Attorney-General, so what does the Chairman of Ways and Means do then, poor thing? He is faced with that as a fact that he has to take into account. He knows that the House wants a vote on the social chapter, but his job is not to arrange that but to examine the amendments that are put before the Committee with that intention. What does he do when faced with an amendment that, according to the highest legal authority in the land, has no effect? His job is not to judge whether amendments will be carried but whether, if they are carried, they produce a clear result that can be implemented in law.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)) proclaimed at length the undesirability of being confined to what is workable and understandable. That is not an
  344
  unreasonable confination, if there is such a word, and it would have been a happy thing if it had been applied to him over many years.
  Mr. Benn: Without implying partiality by the Chairman—a point that neither the hon. Gentleman nor have put forward—the hon. Gentleman said that the Chairman was guided by the law in deciding whether to allow a vote on amendment No. 27 because of the question of workability. Is that the road along which the House wishes to go, with the Chairman depending on the Law Officers—I made that point in my speech—to know whether he should call an amendment? That would be a dangerous course to follow.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman knows, probably better than me, that the Attorney-General is supposed to advise the House, not the Government. He is supposed to tell the House what, in his judgment, the law means. Therefore, I suppose that I would have to answer yes to the right hon. Gentleman.
  None of us comes out of this covered with glory. Those of us who wanted a clear vote on the social chapter have failed to find a form of words to achieve that. The Liberal Democrats are also culpable in that, but the Labour party has far greater resources than we have, although both of us have equal access to the Clerks. Perhaps on Report we shall be successful. I hope so because I want such a vote.
  We also have to recognise that, even if we achieve that elusive form of words on Report, such a vote would be carried only with the support of two groups. The first consists of Conservatives who are against Maastricht and the social chapter but who would vote against their views on the social chapter to achieve their objective of defeating Maastricht. The second consists of Labour Members who do not want Maastricht at all, even with the social chapter, and who will vote on the social chapter with the aim of defeating the whole book.
  The justification for continuing through these byzantine tunnels and accepting some strange allies is the attempt to find some way to make the Government choose between having Maastricht with the social chapter or no Maastricht. I accept that that has been the object of my party and those on the Opposition Front Bench. None of that is either the fault or the responsibility of the Chair.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield said that the House had been—"cheated" was the word that he used.
  Mr. Benn: No. I was quoting my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
  Sir Russell Johnston: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman quoted with approbation. I do not see how he or anyone can say that and simultaneously claim that what he proposes casts no doubt on the Chairman's judgment.
  Mr. Benn: I must correct the hon. Gentleman, because he misheard. I quoted my right hon. Friend the, Member for Copeland but I said that that was stronger language than I would have used. I would not have used the word "cheat" in respect of a decision by the Chair. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that allegation because it would be unfair to give a false impression.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am not going to argue that something is when it was not. However—
  Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend was very careful.
  Sir Russell Johnston: It does not matter. At the end of the day, whatever the right hon. Member for Chesterfield says, the essence of the debate comes down to this: do we trust the judgment of the Chairman of Ways and Means or not? I trust it, and, if necessary, I shall vote that way in the Lobby tonight.
  4.58 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: The debate is obviously not about Europe or about amendment No. 27, which is otiose because there is no way that it can be included in the Bill as it stands. Rather surprisingly, the debate is, in itself, one of the more important debates that have been held this Session, and the reason should be clear. We have no written constitution. The method and operation of Parliament are not because of a written constitution; in the place of a written constitution, we have precedents and procedure. It is the procedure of the House that governs the working of this place and ultimately safeguards the liberties of us all, both within the House and outside. That is why our procedures must be followed and must, in my judgment, be supported on all occasions.
  I wish to make it absolutely clear that, in my view, the debate must end with an overwhelming vote of confidence in the Chairman of Ways and Means. There must be no escape, such as the withdrawal of the motion or a failure to appoint Tellers, which would prevent a vote taking place. We must not allow the matter to be left hanging around, suggesting an entirely unsatisfactory outcome to the debate. The reason for that is absolute. Indeed, it goes to the heart of our parliamentary system.
  Parliament works not because it exists but because it is allowed to operate by the mutual consent of its Members, who over many years have established a procedure that allows individual Members, often of highly conflicting views, to be able to conduct debates and consider legislation in a way that enables Governments to govern and Opposition Members to debate fairly in expressing their points of view.
  To that end, Madam Speaker, we elect you and senior Chairmen—they are similarly elected by the House—to rule over us and to ensure that debates and the general proceedings of the House are conducted in a proper and orderly manner, as established by the procedure that has been put in place.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, for allowing me to intervene. Will he concede, particularly as the motion before us is a rarity—I think that the previous debate on such a motion took place about 20 years ago—that the procedure of the House allows for the safety valve of a debate of this sort? Such debates provide guidance for Chairmen in future and are integral to the practice of the House. They are therefore permissible, whatever the merits or demerits of any such motion.
  Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The motion is in order. Indeed, we would not be debating it if it were not. However, when the authority of the Chair is questioned, as it is in the motion, we undermine the structure that I am determined to defend.
  Those who claim that the motion is no criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), the Chairman of Ways and Means, do not live in
  346
  the real world. It must be seen as an attack on the Chairman's impartiality and the integrity of the Chair. It is—[Interruption.] Those who say no should listen for a moment. If the motion were passed, the Chairman, being a man of honour, would have no alternative but to resign. That needs to be clearly understood.
  Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Peter Emery: No. Let the right hon. Gentleman sit for a moment.
  As I have said, it must be clearly understood that the Chairman would have to resign. Whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, that is the action that an honourable man would take.
  Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman is hyping up the issue beyond reason, and I shall tell the House why. There are many occasions when the House varies an earlier decision. That happens quite often. We are the High Court of Parliament, and in this instance we are reviewing the judgment of one of the Officers of the House. No judge resigns when his decision is overturned on appeal.
  The right hon. Gentleman is trying to make it personal, which is the great corruption of modern politics. It seems that we cannot discuss principle without the discussion being turned into a punch-up with someone. That is something that will destroy democracy perhaps more readily than anything else.
  Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Gentleman may not understand what honour is all about. I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that, if the motion were passed, we would put the Chairman in an untenable position. We have seen it happen once before, and that will be in the memory of some right hon. and hon. Members. The issue did not result in a motion, but the then Chairman of Ways and Means decided that he must resign.
  Has the Chairman of Ways and Means erred? I suggest that his only error, being the extremely nice man he is, has been to try to explain things to his critics and to set out the reasons for his decisions to show his impartiality. Indeed, some of his decisions have certainly not pleased Her Majesty's Government.
  Had the Chairman not been so reasonable—had he not tried to make others understand the reasons for his decisions—today's problems would probably not have arisen. The Chairman could have held to the time-honoured procedure that has been established over the years, which is that the Chair does not give reasons for the selection of amendments for debate or for Divisions. If anyone is in doubt about that, let him remember that reference has already been made to page 405 of "Erskine May".
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Peter Emery: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have referred the House to an exactly similar matter that arose when Sir Charles MacAndrew was Chairman of Ways and Means. Mr. Eric Fletcher said that, if the then Chairman ruled that certain amendments could be discussed together, that could only be on the
  "assumption that they have all been selected for discussion."
  He added:
  "If you rule that certain Amendments can be discussed together … surely it follows that, if any Member wishes to vote on any Amendment that has been discussed, he is entitled to ask that there should be a Division."

  347
  The then Chairman replied:
  "Certainly not. That has never been the rule. I have been doing this work for many years and this has always been the rule that I am now applying. It is often indicated, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has just done, that a Division is desired, and I am allowing a Division on two Amendments. Otherwise, all that would happen would be that my selection would be very much narrower."
  Mr. Fletcher asked:
  "The Chair has power of selection?",
  and the then Chairman replied yes. Later, Mr. Fletcher said:
  "I suggest, in all seriousness, that once the Chair has ruled that certain Amendments have been selected for discussion, and might all be discussed together, the Chair has no authority to decide that there shall not be a Division on any of the selected Amendments."
  The then Chairman replied:
  "The Chair has every power to do so. Up to that point, there has only been one Amendment called. If the Chair does not call any of the others there can be no Divisions. It is very simple. Now we had better get on with the business."
  Mr. Tom Proctor, whom some of us will remember, intervened as follows:
  "Is it now contended that the Chair has two selections, selection for discussion and selection for voting? I have never heard of two before."
  The then Chairman said:
  "Well, the hon. Member has heard of them today."—[Official Report, 14 February 1957; Vol. 564, c. 1459–61.]
  The same issue arises this afternoon.
  Mr. Dalyell: I want to be clear on who the Chairman of the Procedure Committee was referring to in relation to the censure of a Chairman of Ways and Means. Was he referring to the MacAndrew incident or something else?
  Sir Peter Emery: I said that there was not a censure motion. There was a debate concerning Sir Gordon Touche, who resigned.
  Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point? Was there an amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition? It might be helpful to know that.
  Sir Peter Emery: I do not think that that matters.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the answer to the question no?
  Sir Peter Emery: I shall answer the question in my own way, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so. He has enough to say in the House without making my speeches for me.
  I say in response to my hon. Friend that selection rests entirely with the Chair. If that were not so, junior Members, or Members representing minority parties, would never get any consideration. It must be on the matter of the amendment itself. Page 490 of "Erskine May" states:
  "The Chairman may at his discretion allow separate divisions on one or more of the subsequent amendments "
  It seems to me that those who speak in favour of the motion are directly challenging the discretion and impartiality of the Chair. By questioning the discretion they are undermining that authority. The motion must be rejected. I again stress that the motion must be defeated by a massive vote so that it is clear beyond peradventure that we have absolute confidence in the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: As we have been reminded, the motion is about the decision of the Chairman of Ways and Means not to allow a vote on amendment No. 27. To some extent, the motion is a product of the difficulties that the Committee and the Chairman have faced, and the frustration that the Committee has felt because we are trying to debate a Bill which incorporates a treaty that will have an effect on much, if not most, of the commercial, financial and economic life of the nation.
  The real legislation that we are debating is not the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, but the treaty of European union. We cannot amend it. We can exclude. but we cannot amend. The last time something similar happened was 21 years ago, and it happened then for the same reason. Sir Elwyn Jones moved a motion—I forget the words—regretting the lack of selection of amendments because we were in precisely the same situation then as now: the Bill that we were debating was not the real Bill. We were debating the treaty of Rome—that was the real Bill—and we could not amend it then. I am not sure that then we could even exclude parts of it. That Bill was slightly different from this one, but we were experiencing the same frustrations and problems.
  Sir Elwyn's motion was not a personal criticism of the then Chairman of Ways and Means, just as the present motion is not a personal criticism of our Chairman.
  The Standing Committees of the House are there to debate Bills. Bills are presented after they have been given a Second Reading, and Second Reading Bills are draft Bills. They are completed after consultation with Ministers —sometimes after White or Green Papers—but they are draft Bills. They then go before a Committee. The function of the House is to debate them, to try to change them and to make representations to Ministers. It is the opportunity that hon. Members have to change legislation.
  Again, we cannot do that here. We are not debating a "Second Reading" Bill; we are debating, in effect, a "Third Reading" Bill. The treaty of European union is a Third Reading Bill which cannot be changed. That is one reason for the frustration, and one reason why we are here today in the same circumstances as 21 years ago.
  The problem has been compounded—I make no criticism, although I will criticise on another occasion—by the fact that the official Opposition—except in regard to the social chapter—is in general agreement with Her Majesty's Government. The House works best when the official Opposition are opposing.
  The Executive in Britain sits in the legislature, and I think that it is a good system. I do not go along with the trendy views of The Independent and The Guardian and the chattering classes that it is a terrible system. Because the Executive sits in the legislature, the Executive in the main has control over the legislature. It has enormous power, but that power is limited, checked and balanced by the fact that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, in general, oppose. In this case, they do not, apart from on the social chapter, thus increasing the problem that the power of the Executive over this legislation is even greater than it normally is within our legislative and constitutional system. That also has contributed to our frustrations and, in the end, to this motion.
  In addition to those difficulties, we have also had problems with the debates. The Chairman of Ways and

  349
  Means had no alternative but to make groupings of amendments. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, the Chairman of Ways and Means saw us in his room and we discussed these matters. Because we could only exclude chunks of the Bill, he had no option but to group a large number of amendments together.
  I think that Ministers treated those debates as if they were Second Reading debates; certainly the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), has done so. I will exonerate the Foreign Secretary and partly exonerate the Financial Secretary to the Treasury from this criticism, but in general Ministers have treated them as Second Reading debates. They have intervened early, not replied to the debates and often replied to only a few of the points raised. The cue was taken by my hon. Friends, quite naturally, because that is the way the system works.
  As to the question of closures, many of us were cut off in full flight. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) was actually writing his speech on the Front Bench, but he did not have a chance to speak. I have spoken to people outside the House who watch our proceedings on satellite and cable television on something called the parliamentary channel. They have expressed amusement, and asked "Who is that gentleman who so often jumps up? He sits not far from where the Chairman of Ways and Means sits. Sometimes he is a little gentleman, sometimes a large gentleman, but when hon. Members speak he suddenly jumps up and that is the end of the debate." I have to try to explain that the gentleman is not a lord high executioner. I think the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) has done the same thing on one or two occasions.
  Madam Speaker: May I jump up and intervene? I am being very tolerant, but the right hon. Gentleman has had a long introduction to what he is really seeking to say. He will understand that I have many hon. Members to call. I hope he will now speak more directly to the motion.
  Mr. Davies: The way in which the closure was operated added to our frustration.
  Amendment No. 27 is not only about the operation of the social chapter, but about money, because it deals with the part of the treaty relating to payments to be made by Her Majesty's Government towards the administration of the social chapter by the other 11 member states. So there are two factors involved which unite the different groups in the House who are against the Maastricht treaty.
  The problem started, I am sorry to say, when the Chairman of Ways and Means appeared to most of us to have agreed that there would be a vote on amendment No. 27. It would be unfair to subject the Chairman's statement to a kind of Byzantine textual criticism, because, by definition, the Chairman's job is to react to certain situations and circumstances.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means said:
  "We are some way off a vote."
  Later, he said:
  "I am minded to take seriously the need for a further debate".
  To the Chairman's credit, he accepted that further debate, and the Attorney-General had to come and speak to the Committee. Then he went on to say:
  350
  "before the Committee votes on that amendment."—[Official Report, 22 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 685.]
  In my opinion, that was a clear statement that there would be a vote on the amendment. It was not a decision; it was a statement at the time. The Chairman then changed his mind. He was entitled to change his mind and decide in the way that he did, but to give a strong indication to the Committee that he was prepared to call a vote and then to change his mind means that we are entitled to scrutinise and consider carefully whether there were any reasons for that change of mind, bearing in mind, as has been said, that the amendment had been selected for debate, was in order and was not a wrecking amendment. The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford, thought that it was, but he was wrong. The Attorney-General made it clear that it was not a wrecking amendment. It was tabled not by the cavaliers on the Back Benches but by the roundheads on the Opposition Front Bench. It is a sensible and respectable amendment.
  When it appeared to us, therefore, that the Chairman of Ways and Means had changed his mind, we were, and are, entitled to scrutinise why he did so. The Chairman of Ways and Means, being a very brave, nice and, perhaps, foolish man, did not give reasons, but he came close to giving reasons. No doubt that was a dangerous thing to do, because barrack-room lawyers on the Back Benches could then pore over the reasons, or non-reasons, that had been given.
  Then the Chairman quite properly indicated—I applaud him for it, because he had changed his mind—at column 39 on 19 April that he had to consider, in allowing a vote, the clarity of the amendment, its impact on the Bill and the fact that, if brought into effect, it had to be workable and understandable. Without having subjected the amendment to that amount of textual criticism, I had always thought that amendment No. 27 was pretty clear. The Minister of State got it all wrong, but if he was wrong he was clearly wrong, as was said of a judge in the Court of Appeal some time ago.
  The Attorney-General did not think much of amendment No. 27, for it did not make any difference to anybody, but it was perfectly clear to him. I have read again the Attorney-General's speech. Nowhere did he say that amendment No. 27 was not clear. The Foreign Secretary made a statement before the Attorney-General spoke. He did not say, either, that amendment No. 27 was not clear. With the greatest respect, therefore, there is nothing wrong, so far as I can see, with the clarity of amendment No. 27.
  Is amendment No. 27 workable and understandable? The Government seemed to think that it was workable and understandable. Many of us have been Ministers and have latched on to little nods from parliamentary draftsmen and civil servants, indicating that we should resist certain amendments because they are badly drafted, unclear and unworkable. There was no such indication from the Government about amendment No. 27. The promoters of the Bill, the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney-General, never told us, as far as I can tell—I leave aside the Minister of State who says lots of things—that amendment No. 27 is unworkable, cannot be understood and will do something terrible to the Bill.
  I cannot understand the reasons or the indications given by the Chairman of Ways and Means. They do not convince me. They may convince others. I make no

  351
  criticism of the honesty or integrity of the Chairman of Ways and Means, but looking at it as a statement, that is my feeling about it.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said, or implied, if every future vote has to be taken on an amendment that is workable and clear, there will be far fewer votes in Committees. There will also be far fewer votes on Government amendments. I remember Government amendments, inserted in Committee into groups of amendments and voted upon, that were not particularly clear or workable or understandable. There lies the rub. It is a very brave Chairman of any Committee who, on a Bill promoted by the Government, who have a panoply of assistance from parliamentary draftsmen and civil servants, says, "This amendment is not clear and is not workable; therefore I will not call it." That is why I am not convinced by the reasons or indications that have been given to us.
  I hope, Madam Speaker, that it may be possible, somehow, to have a vote on amendment No. 27, or on one similar to it. Many people outside the House will find it strange if we are unable to do so. Therefore, I hope that a way of doing so can be found. After all, a vote takes only 15 minutes.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. for calling me to speak in the debate. My intervention will be brief so that other hon. Members will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.
  I listened with increased misgivings to what was said about the motion. However much the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) tries to give the impression, as he does with great skill, that what he has put forward is reasonable, restrained and far from being a fully fledged censure motion, one listens I o such points with mounting anxiety. As the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), rightly said, the implications of the motion are sinister for the future of the House and the conduct of its business. The implications of the motion are outrageous, even though it is cleverly couched in restrained and slightly reticent language.
  I am old-fashioned enough to believe in the procedures of the House—so much so as to say that I do not believe that the reasons given by the Chair for selecting or not selecting amendments should be questioned in any way. That may sound excessively docile, but it is the only way in which the House can proceed in a practical way, particularly on major legislation that is taken on the Floor of the House, when there is a highly charged atmosphere and when people are looking for the slightest reason to be suspicious, with barrack-room lawyers looking not just for television interview reasons but for the slightest reason to suspect conspiracy or collusion between the Treasury Bench, the Chair, and so on.
  I have detected no evidence of that in any way whatsoever throughout the 19 or 20 days of the prolonged Committee stage on the Floor of the House. One has to compare these proceedings with the much more fundamental and profound Bill on entry into the Community and the treaties—the treaty of Rome and treaty of accession—that we enacted in 1972 and 1973, when I think I am right in saying that fewer days were spent considering the measure in a Committee of the whole
  352
  House. That was a much more epoch-making step for this country to take, at the request of the then Government, than this legislation, although I welcome it, and the treaty, for all the reasons that have been put forward in our debates.
  There has been a huge amount of debate on the Bill by a minority of Members. I reckon that between 85 and 90 hon. Members in all parts of the House are rigorously against the provisions of the Bill, in its final enactment, and the treaty behind it. When one compares that with the overwhelming majority of hon. Members who want the Bill to be enacted and also want the treaty, the amount of time devoted to debate has been more than reasonable. It is outrageous to suggest that the Chair has given erroneous reasons, or has done the wrong thing by the House of Commons in respect of amendment No. 27, or has, in general, oppressed the House. But that is the meaning of the motion. That is why it is unacceptable and should be crushingly defeated today.
  Mr. Knapman: I am sorry that my hon. Friend believes that the motion has sinister implications. It would be interesting to know what they are. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to suggest that the outcome of tonight's vote will in any way reflect upon the need, or otherwise, for a vote on amendment No. 27.
  Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend's intervention is totally astonishing. If we assume that the motion of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield is carried, is it not right to reflect on the implications of the collapse in the credibility of the business of the House in general, not just in respect of this piece of legislation? The reasons for the silly suspicions of a conspiracy are self-evident. I need not go into them. Instead, I shall refer to the assertions that, in my estimation, were wrongly made about a Scottish television interview.
  I did not see the interview, but the assertions relate to an answer given to television viewers by the Chairman of Ways and Means. Subject to an examination of the text of his answer, it seems to me incredible that the Chairman of Ways and Means would say on television that he never gives reasons and that, despite the fact that he was giving a television interview, it was none of the interviewer's business and that he would not answer the question. Answers in a television interview are, surely, totally different and, in any case, discursive, wide-ranging, colloquial and different from literal answers that are given in the Chamber of the House of Commons.
  The idea that that is the same as giving reasons for selecting or not selecting an amendment for debate or vote is completely spurious, and I am surprised that people are even suggesting it.
  Mr. Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dykes: I may give way, but not for the moment.
  The Leader of the House presented his argument briefly but with great skill. He is known to be not only a very good Leader of the House but a very fair-minded person who always makes his points in a calm, balanced and dispassionate way. I was glad that on this occasion he had a note of justified indignation in his voice when he rejected the motion and asked for it to be defeated in the appropriate manner. The majority of hon. Members are extremely annoyed and fed up about the fact that the motion has even been presented.

  353
  Although a majority have spoken against the motion, the anti-Europe and, for the purposes of this debate, the anti-Chair speakers—I use that description deliberately although they deny it—have repeated exactly the points of order made for more than an hour at the beginning of this week. Their arguments were a complete rerun, and nothing new has been added. There has been no justification for the motion. Even the right hon. Member for Chesterfield has fallen asleep—he is either bored with my words or with the text of his own motion. It is essential for the House to reject the motion decisively with a crushing defeat.
  I am not defending a personality, although I agree with the repeated assertions, which have also been made by the critics, that the present Chairman of Ways and Means has done an outstanding job throughout the Committee stage. The reason I am genuinely indignant about the motion —as are other hon. Members—is that I am worried about paralysing the authority of the Chair in the future. From now on, there would be perpetual questioning of the Chair's motives—
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman keeps asserting that the Chair's decisions are always universally accepted. However, on a controversial issue in 1976, for example, the Speaker—not the Chair—made a decision against the hybridity of a Bill. He said that that was his final ruling and that, if hon. Members disagreed with it, they should table the usual motion—a motion of no confidence. The Conservative Opposition at the time did not wrap their cloaks around them and go home but persuaded the Speaker to change his decision because they did not agree with it. Were they wrong to do so?
  Mr. Dykes: I did not mean that one should automatically reject the remote possibility of such an event arising in the House on rare occasions. That would be manifestly absurd. What I object to is the fact that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield did not table the motion as a motion of censure or of no confidence but tried to tone it down to make it more acceptable. That is the danger of the text.
  I hope that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman is listening. I noticed that the shadow Leader of the House carefully did not respond—I do not think that she could at that stage—to the question asked by the former leader of the Liberal Democrats who is now a foreign affairs spokesman. The question was about the comparison between new clauses 74 and 75 and amendment No. 27 which, as has rightly been said, we have already passed by in Committee, subject to any re-presentation on Report. I hope that the question will be answered because it is important.
  I am not assuming the construction of any reasons why the Chair should have selected an amendment or new clause for a vote. In my opinion, no reasons need to be given. I accept the Chair's decision. Many of the Chair's selections have been very much against the Government's interest and there have, quite rightly, been no complaints about that.
  Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) as he is accusing other people of not having listened. My right hon. Friend spelt out the position in some detail. Amendment No. 27 and new
  354
  clauses 74 and 75 may have the same ultimate objective —to put pressure on the Government to accept the social chapter—but they do so in two entirely different ways. From the beginning, we have never accepted that they were alternatives. They have separate functions, which is why amendment No. 27 was pressed and why subsequent amendments were tabled, officially and by Back Benchers, to find a way to achieve the basic objective. My right hon. Friend made that point and we stand by it.
  Mr. Dykes: In that case, it is funny that the shadow Leader of the House did not answer the question in that way. I think that there is a disagreement among members of the Labour Front Bench and among Labour Members. Be that as it may, we are getting back to the idea that the Chair should, through the motion and outrageous pressure from a minority of hon. Members, apparently be coerced to give reasons for the selection or otherwise of amendments, either for debate or vote. I reject that idea out of hand, except perhaps once every few decades in 1 per cent. of parliamentary opportunities and in a truly outrageous case.
  The Chair's decision was a routine and justified decision, although I concede that amendment No. 27 is very important. The motion is disgraceful, and the quicker it is unequivocally defeated, the better.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: Like all members of the Opposition, I am keen to get the social chapter included in the treaty. I hope that it will be possible on Report, because many of my constituents and people in Scotland generally have very low-paid jobs and need the protection of legislation, whether it comes from the House or from Europe. However, I support the Chairman of Ways and Means. I am reminded of a discussion that took place last night in the Tea Room. A young colleague summed up the issue very well by saying that one cannot have a football match without a referee, which is what the motion is trying to do.
  For seven years, I have been a member of the Chairmen's Panel, and have throughly enjoyed it. I have learnt a great deal about the procedure of Committees and the House, and about amendments. Above all, I have learnt that one cannot please everyone. It is very difficult to do so, and it is natural that, when the Chairman decides in favour of one side, the other side is displeased. I do not think that any Chairman, including the Chairman of Ways and Means, would do anything to harm the integrity of the position that he or she holds. The strength of the House of Commons is that those who chair our Committees are constituency Members of Parliament. When they listen to the arguments made by hon. Members, they can easily put themselves in their position. They know what it is to be in a minority, trying to appeal to the Chair.
  I recall a humorous situation that occurred in the Scottish Grand Committee. I was in the impossible position of trying to call as many Back Benchers as I could, including those from the minority parties. Inevitably, some hon. Members were squeezed out. One hon. Member spoke to me during one sitting, and the language he used would have made a navvy blush—it certainly made me blush. He gave me a great deal of abuse. I told him that the reason he was not called was that I had to call the Scottish National party, but I still got the abuse. Six months later,

  355
  that Labour Member was in the SNP and was shouting about the SNP not getting enough time on the Floor of the House. One cannot win.
  On another occasion, the Clerk informed me that I could allow the Committee to sit 10 minutes beyond 1 pm to dispose of the business. I thought that everyone would be delighted about that, but a member of the Committee told me that he was not pleased because it meant that he would be late for his luncheon engagement, so he intended to report me to the Speaker.
  I was in the House last Thursday and heard the discussion. I was aware of the high feelings. You will have noticed, Madam Speaker, that for many years I have chosen to sit here below the Gangway, and I enjoy the banter of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who sits nearby. I admire his sharp wit and the way that he gives Ministers and Conservatives in general a hard time—he gives the Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons an even harder time. He is at his best in such situations, but he is certainly not at his best when he starts making personal attacks. I dissociate myself from terms such as "stitch-up" and "deals with the Government". I do not think that such remarks are helpful.
  If we want people to accept positions of responsibility, by all means we can criticise them, so long as it is fair criticism, but personal attacks do not help. I was brought up in the trade union and labour movement, and because of the disadvantaged situation from which I came, I acquired most of my education from attending trade union and Labour party meetings. I would not have had that education, and l would have not been capable of being a Member of Parliament, had it not been for strong chairmanship. One thing that I learned early was that, when things go against someone, he should fight his corner and keep fighting, but the last thing he should do is blame the chairman.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. William Cash: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to the occasion on which the Speaker's ruling on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill was—disgracefully, I believe —overruled by the Government. The manner in which the decision had been arrived at was significant. I was involved to some extent, because I was then the legal adviser to the ship repairers, so I was well acquainted with what was going on. The decision was disgraceful, and there was no basis whatever on which anyone could derive any satisfaction from ignoring a ruling of the Speaker or, indeed, of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  I have not put my name to the motion, but that does not mean that I have not been seriously concerned about the difficulties that have arisen over amendment No. 27, primarily because, as I said about the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the object of the procedure is more important than all the arcane technicalities that prevail at the end of the day. Underneath all the precedents, we are really discussing a simple question: should the House of Commons be able to put to the vote a matter of vital interest to the people outside, whether in terms of the social chapter or of taxation and the agreement? The real problem is that the people outside
  356
  simply will not be able to understand why, in simple language, after all the debate that has taken place, we cannot have a vote on amendment No. 27.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Surely the argument is not about whether the people outside understand why we do or do not have a vote. The people outside frequently do not understand our complex procedures. The object of the debate is to determine whether the Chairman of Ways and Means has authority over the Chamber. That is the question today. We cannot have a form of mob rule. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said, it is difficult enough being a Member of Parliament. We must make our own judgments, and occupants of the Chair must make theirs. They should not be a football to be kicked about on the whim of other hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).
  Mr. Cash: I do not believe that I have put forward any views on the subject on the basis of a whim. The problem is that the issue has become Byzantine because, although we are told that no reasons are given, unless we subscribe to the notion of the hypocrisy of democracy, we know perfectly well that reasons have been given. In the light of the television transcript that we have seen and of statements that have been recorded in Hansard, it is perfectly ludicrous to say that no reasons have been given.
  We have been clearly told that one of the problems involved with the selection of the amendment is that apparently it would wreck the Bill, and we must have regard to the effect that it would have on the Bill. That was said in so many words in the television programme. I see that the Chairman of Ways and Means is shaking his head, so I shall read out the transcript, because we must have a clear understanding. In reply to an interviewer's question the transcript records that he said:
  "Well you have to go back to the fact that there was a significant 2nd reading vote for the Bill therefore the House has already said, as it moved into Committee, that it wanted the Bill to go through and that it would accept amendments on the workings of the Bill, like the one we have got on the Committee of the Regions where they change the basis of who shall be appointed, but you cannot wreck the Bill but you can put in these sort of caveats and in a sense this one is a caveat and a very strong moral one actually, because what it really says is that yes the Bill can go through but the House will have to have a vote after the Royal Assent on whether or not it wants the Social Chapter in there."
  Earlier, referring to another amendment, which must have been new clause 75, the Chairman said:
  "to put down an amendment which is more workable than 27 and that is what has actually come out."
  I am now at a slight disadvantage, because I see that the Chairman of Ways and Means, in a sedentary position, is shaking his head. I should be more than happy to withdraw my reference if what I have is not a verbatim transcript, but I can use only the evidence before me. I am simply making a point that is reiterated in column 39 of the Official Report of 19 April—perhaps we are entitled to put more emphasis on that than on a television interview. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means is now nodding his head. In respect of amendment No. 27 he said:
  "In arriving at such a decision … any occupant of the Chair must have regard to a number of factors, including the Committee's debates, the clarity of effect of an amendment, and its impact on the Bill which, if brought into effect, must

  357
  be both workable and understandable. In the very nature of this case, there can be no exact precedent."—[Official Report, 19 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 39.]
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) referred to the MacAndrew case, but the Chairman of Ways and Means has made it clear that he had to form his judgment on the issue before him. The problem that I have with the reasons that he has given leads me to be concerned about the basis upon which that decision was made. It is conceded that there is no precedent, because such matters must be regarded as being taken separately on each occasion.
  That being said, let us consider the questions that are put to us. In my view, they merely compound the Byzantine nature of the position that we are already in, because if the reasons that we have been given were applied on future occasions they would cause an unbelievable amount of difficulty. Who is to decide on the "clarity of effect" of an amendment? It is sometimes exceedingly difficult, without waiting for the matter to be referred to the courts, to know what decision will be taken on the meaning to be drawn from a specific form of words. In the European dimension, considering the methods of interpretation now applied in the European courts as compared with those used in our own courts, that becomes even more difficult. The considerations are to be:
  "the clarity of effect of an amendment, and its impact on the Bill".
  The reference to the amendment's impact on the Bill is similar to the reference in the television transcript to which I have just referred. I am very concerned about the impact on the Bill. Although no reasons have been given for the reference, I believe that it refers to Second Reading, which was mentioned in the television transcript, and the impact that amendment No. 27, if passed, would have on the process of the treaty and the Bill. It has been decided effectively to remove amendment No. 27 from the amendment paper.
  The Bill received a majority of 244 on Second Reading. However, Second Reading occurred a very long time ago, on 2 May last year. Since then, there has been a referendum in Denmark. Therefore, we are not dealing with the same agreement or treaty that was signed on 7 February because the Danish people are—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant, but I am now insisting that the hon. Gentleman should speak to the motion before the House. The debate is limited to the exercise of the Chair's discretion on amendment No. 27. It is limited only to that and not to the Danish referendum or to what anyone else does in any other country. It is limited simply to the judgment and discretion of the Chairman of Ways and Means: that is all.
  Mr. Cash: Indeed, Madam Speaker, and I am happy to follow your ruling. I am referring to the impact on the Bill and that was the reason given by the Chairman of Ways and Means. That causes me concern because the principle of the Bill on Second Reading has been breached by our withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism. If we are not to have a Division on amendment No. 27 and the reason for that—although it is not entirely disclosed—is the effect that it would have in respect of Second Reading, that is not a justifiable reason for there to be no Division on the amendment.
  358
  According to the motion and to the comments of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the amendment must be workable and understandable. That point has already been discussed. By providing new criteria, there will be enormous difficulties in respect of future rulings.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I have listened with great care to my hon. Friend who, unlike me, is not one of the minority of hon. Members to whom the procedures of the House are sometimes arcane. I have examined pages 491 to 493 of "Erskine May". It is clear that the intelligibility and the workability of an amendment are criteria which Chairmen of Committees have taken into account for many years. Is my hon. Friend saying that they are new criteria?
  Mr. Cash: Those of us who have examined the same provisions are perfectly aware that it may be a question of grammar or logic. However, there is no question about the meaning to be attached to amendment No. 27. It is crystal clear. The problem is about workability and understan-dability in relation to the Bill which received its Second Reading by a substantial majority and in respect of which the landscape has changed fundamentally since then.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means told me that it was not the length of debate in question, but the content that was the issue. However, I want to query another issue that has not been mentioned so far in this debate. If we were to be confined in this way, it would be impossible for anyone to know whether the content of an amendment would lead to its being ruled out of order in respect of a Division.
  That raises yet another problem: what is the content of a debate? Some debates are immensely interesting and some are exceedingly difficult to understand. The reality is that we cannot become locked into an argument about content as opposed to length because that would confuse matters.
  It is equally clear that, in respect of amendments tabled on Report, "Erskine May" states:
  "In particular, amendments are sometimes tabled to reverse Government defeats in Committee and these are always selected."
  That means that Governments always have the right to obtain a reversal on Report. Presumably that will apply to the vote on the Committee of the Regions. "Erskine May" continues:
  "In general, amendments which were debated at length"—
  it does not say anything about content—
  "in Committee, and brought to a vote, are not selected by the Speaker for further debate on Report. Amendments only briefly debated and which were then withdrawn, may well be selected if time permits."
  However, the Chairman is on record as having made it perfectly clear that one of the prime reasons why amendment No. 27 was not selected for a Division was that the length of the debate and presumably also its content were not substantial. I believe that that is extraordinary having regard to the column inches devoted to that amendment. If we move to another stage, I find it difficult to understand how such matters might not be considered.
  We must also bear in mind that the House of Lords would not be able to consider the tax implications of amendment No. 27. Furthermore, with respect to the whole issue of tax which has been thoroughly debated this

  359
  afternoon, we must consider whether we have a right to determine the issues that arise under the agreement vested in amendment No. 27.
  When considering the remarks of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), and the Chairman of the Ways and Means last week, I found it strange and opaque to discover that a new kind of doctrine appeared to be emerging—that the Government deserve protection if they find themselves in a minority. Some of the proceedings last week, in respect of the comments of the Minister of State and the Chairman of Ways and Means, would repay detailed consideration.
  Mr. Whitney: Before my hon. Friend concludes his remarks, will he clarify a problem that is puzzling some of us? Some of us have noticed that three of our hon. Friends have signed the motion that we are debating. However, the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is missing from that list. Many of us would be interested to know why his name does not appear, given the strength of feeling that, at his usual generous length, he is now offering to the House in respect of the views and conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means. Can my hon. Friend tell us which way he will be voting in the Lobby, as that would also be of interest to hon. Members?
  Mr. Cash: I do not have the slightest intention of disclosing in advance how [will vote. However, I do not believe that the motion is sensible, for the simple reason that I do not believe that we need to hype the issue into a censure motion. Substantive questions arise and I am addressing them.
  We would be neglecting the responsibility vested in us, given the fact that I raised points of order on the matter in the past, if we did not follow through the logic of what has been happening. It is not in the interests of the House, for the reasons that I have given, for us to be taken down this route by the judgment on amendment No. 27. That is the point that I am making.
  With respect to the implications of declining a Division on amendment No. 27, "Erskine May" states:
  "The Speaker's guiding principle is to avoid debate on the Floor of the House which is simply a repetition of the debate in Committee and where exactly the same decision may be expected on the amendment or amendments concerned."
  If there is no vote, exactly the same decision will be taken because no opportunity for a vote will have been offered. There is ample opportunity for this matter to be reconsidered without getting into a tremendous hysterical turmoil about whether the Chairman made the right decision. I am happy to accept that he made the best judgment at the time. The question must be: was it the right judgment and has it led us into an impossible Byzantine position which can be resolved on Report?
  Another reference to the Speaker's criteria, which was set out by Speaker King, is that all Government amendments are usually selected. Therefore, given the importance of this matter to the Government, and the fact that amendment No. 27 is in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, that presents an extremely good reason for selecting it subsequently.
  Mr. Rooker: Surely the hon. Gentleman is overstating the case. The amendments in the name of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill are selected virtually automatically. If this were a private Member's Bill, the amendments of
  360
  the hon. Member who introduced it would be selected. Government amendments have been selected only because the Minister is in charge of the Bill.
  Mr. Cash: That is a fair point: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have simply set out what "Erskine May" says:
  "The Speakers usually select … important issues fully debated in committee, but still containing vital matters worthy of a 'last look'."
  That seems to be the basis on which there will be ample opportunity, after this debate is finished, to re-examine amendment No. 27, which is of enormous importance politically and constitutionally. Undoubtedly, it is an important and vital issue. I believe that it is worthy of a last look.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I hope that I do not have to travel or take anyone down these Byzantine ways. I have heard hon. Members on both sides of the House talking about the matter, and I want to be as clear as I possibly can. I shall kick off by saying that we do not need any lectures from Euro-fanatics such as the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) about ensuring that democracy in the House of Commons remains. He has been at the forefront of ensuring that power has been taken away from the House of Commons to Brussels, Bonn, Strasbourg, Luxembourg and anywhere else on the continent. We do not need any lectures from Euro-fanatics about undermining democracy in the House.
  Mr. Dykes: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the treaty. As he knows, the treaty as debated provides for a reinforcement of the powers and involvement of all national parliaments, including the House of Commons.
  Mr. Skinner: There has been a hidden agenda in the Common Market since it began on 28 October 1971. Before the hon. Gentleman became a Member of Parliament, he was campaigning outside for the European Movement. He is telling hon. Members in the House, "We are not going to do anything important today. We will pass a little treaty, but don't worry—nothing will happen". There has been a hidden agenda.
  Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not allow himself to be moved away from the motion on the Order Paper by such interventions.
  Mr. Skinner: It is important to remember that we are talking against the background of a shift in power from this place to the Common Market. The whole argument, like the previous one in which Grant-Ferris was involved, was about the Common Market. It has bedevilled the House of Commons almost all the time that I have been a Member of Parliament.
  Some of the greatest problems which have arisen in the House of Commons have done so because we are a member of the Common Market. The split in the Labour party, the split in the Tory party and all the rest of it are attributable to the fact that many hon. Members in the House and many millions of people outside believe that we made a big mistake.
  Mr. Stephen Milligan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Skinner: No—we must allow other hon. Members to speak.[Interruption.] Madam Speaker is nodding her head, so we are together; we have established a partnership.
  As for all that talk about not undermining the Chair, let us have none of that nonsense. A few years ago, when Speaker Weatherill was in the Chair, there were briefings from the Government to get rid of him. All the newspapers got the stories about how the Prime Minister wanted to get the Speaker out of the Chair. We know the stories. Conservative Members were briefing all the time.
  Let us not be lily-livered about the fact that the Chairman of Ways and Means is under the microscope because Mrs. Thatcher and the rest of them were quite happy to tell Weatherill, indirectly through the newspapers, "Get on your bike. We have had enough of you. We want somebody else in your place". Weatherill was smart enough to talk to Members of Parliament that he thought might help him to stay in his job. That is the background.
  Let us not have any more talk from those pompous people that somehow or other we cannot discuss the Chair in the House of Commons. It happens in every other organisation that I know about. I had not been chair of the Labour party for five minutes before nearly every right-wing member of the national executive committee tried to move me out at the first meeting. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) stood by me, but he had a job to get a seconder.
  All the hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench, who were members of the NEC, were not bothered about undermining the authority of the chair. I was right. I had only quoted the standing orders, but that was enough for them. They did not like the standing orders—they are all standing orders—and they were prepared to kick me out of the chair at the first meeting. I stood my ground. I did not go whining to people and saying, "Isn't it terrible? How can I manage?" I fought on.
  I do not know what this place is coming to when hon. Members cannot make comments about the Chair. The Chairman made a series of mistakes—not just one. He got caught up in the 20th century and television. Some people said that television would not alter this place. It has altered this place, and the Chairman of Ways and Means. I do not say that in a machiavellian way. The Chairman went on television. Like all people who go on television, he was asked awkward questions and responded.
  It is time that we stopped this nonsense of saying that the Chair cannot explain. Is it time to stop it? We are approaching the 21st century, and a leading Member in the House of Commons is not able to tell the assembled Members, "The reason why I am not selecting your amendment or putting it to the vote is the following." Let us grow up. Let us start to explain so that people fully understand. What is it about the mythology of this place that somehow or other we wrap the Chair in a cocoon? What is it all for? It is high time that we understood more clearly. The Chair was wrong on 22 February when he said that there would be a vote. Surely we should be allowed to make the point in the House.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and I were brought up in different ways, although we agree on many things. He is a sensitive old soul. Today, he said that the motion was not an attack on the Chairman of Ways and Means. I think it is. I have never thought any different —I had to tell my right hon. Friend that last night. The
  362
  motion is an attack on the Chairman. It is not a personal attack in the sense that hon. Members do not like him: it is an attack on his judgment. Some of us feel that he made the wrong one.
  What is wrong with being able to say that from time to time? That is against a background of a Tory party which, only a few years ago, told the Prime Minister, "Get on your bike". They chucked her out like a dog in the night.
  Now, those same sensitive souls, such as the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who was probably one of those who chucked her out, and the hon. Member for Harrow, East—they were part and parcel of that great vote—try to tell us that we cannot discuss these other matters in here. They stand here talking about the pomp and ceremony of this place. The previous Prime Minister got thrown out without a majority vote. There was no majority to kick her out, but she went, just as many others have done.
  I will tell the House why I believe that some of the people here are not keen on passing a motion against the Chairman of Ways and Means. They are afraid that he might resign. He is an honourable man. I am sure that he would resign. I put another proposition to the Chairman of Ways and Means. I think that he should not resign. He should come back and say, "We should have a vote on something similar to amendment No. 27." I would back him in the Chair if he said that.
  So what is it? Do people not want him to resign because the Government have at least 15 members of the Cabinet who ought to resign? It might catch on. They might say, "We cannot afford to let him go, because people might think we should go. He has been an honourable man." That is the last thing that this Tory Government want.
  There is a hidden agenda. I do not have any hang-ups about it. It was a stitch-up from beginning to end. I do not believe that, in this modern age, especially with television, it is possible for the Chair not to know what the Government are up to. I find that incredible. When a debate is closed after three, four or five hours in the middle of the night, do people expect me to believe that there has not been a discussion between the Chair and the Chief Whip or one of his people? I do not believe it. Of course it is done, and I expect it to be done. This place could not be run without that sort of collaboration.
  I am also in favour of the motion because I have seen power removed from Back Benchers in the 23 years that I have been a Member of Parliament. The motion is not merely about Mr. Morris. When my hon. Friends go into the Lobby, as assuredly we will, they should realise that, in the past 23 years, this Government and Governments before them have taken power to themselves over and over again.
  There was a time when the Government had to close the summer and spring Adjournment motion debates. Now the debates last only three hours. We used to fight on the Consolidated Fund Bill right through the night and the following morning and cock up the Government's business for the next day. Now all that has gone. There was a time when there was no such thing as 10-minute limits on speeches for Back-Bench Members after 6 and 7 o'clock. Now there is a limit, but the Front-Bench spokesmen still have their 30, 40 or 50 minutes.
  We never used to have guillotines such as we have now. When I came into the House, it was extremely rare for a guillotine to be put on. The practice has grown over the years. That is all part of the same business.

  363
  The power that the Government have today is enormous by comparison with what Governments had previously. On this occasion, Back Benchers want to assert some authority, but in the end it is about Speakers and their role in relation to Back Benchers. Speakers all claim to be on the side of the Back Benchers. They say that they will preserve and safeguard the interests of Back Benchers. The truth is that that is not always the case.
  Speaker Lenthall said, "I have neither eye to see," and the rest of it. On this occasion, my view—for what it is worth—is that the Chairman of Ways and Means did not act like Speaker Lenthall. He acted on behalf of the Government. The result was that we lost a great opportunity to score a great wounding victory against the Government on amendment No. 27. That is what really happened. It sticks in my craw. No one will convince me otherwise. I believe that, instead of standing his ground, Morris surrendered not only to the Government but, sadly, whether he knows it or not, to Brussels. That is why I shall vote for the motion.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. lain Duncan-Smith: It is a case of "Follow that", but I shall endeavour to do so in a short speech, to allow others to speak.
  I have listened to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Having heard many of the speeches made throughout the Committee stage, I had a sense of deja vu, but at least it was a comfortable one. I listened particularly carefully to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Clearly, his knowledge of procedure is far ahead of anything that I could possibly rival. I do not intend to be caught up in that argument.
  I am against the Maastricht process and treaty. That is fairly clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have made my position pretty clear. I was and am disappointed that amendment No. 27 was not put to a vote. However, I believe that the important thing is to make my views clear on the Chairman of Ways and Means, who has behaved wholly honourably and in a fair manner throughout the Committee stage.
  Therefore, one must ask whether the motion will' be perceived in the way that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield explained it. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman and others, especially the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), believe that it is not absolutely a motion of censure. It is not written exactly in those terms. But the problem is that the motion will be perceived as a motion of censure on someone who has behaved honourably in reaching his decision.
  As I said, I am disappointed that the Chairman's decision precluded a vote on amendment No. 27. I hope that, on Report, you will review that decision, Maclam Speaker, and for your own reasons come to a decision that may well allow the House to vote on amendment No. 27.
  The problem with the motion is that the mechanism —as far as I can tell from the procedure of the House—is such that there is no way in which the outcome of the vote tonight, whatever it may be, will allow a vote on amendment No. 27. Therefore, it is bound to be perceived wholly as a motion of censure. That is why I am opposed to it.
  Therefore, I hope and wish that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who put their names to it will carefully examine
  364
  the motion again and, before we reach the stage at which it is necessary to proceed to a vote, withdraw it. It would be in the best interests of the House not to have the motion pressed to a vote, to proceed to the remaining stages of the Committee proceedings and the Report stage and, hopefully, to a vote on amendment No. 27.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: I make it clear from the start, speaking as the second signatory to the motion, that no personal attack is intended. I do not agree with the attack in the forthright speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on the conduct and motivation of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I take the view that Sir Elwyn Jones, as he then was, took when he moved a similar motion against the Chair in 1972. He said:
  "Least of all is it an imputation … against his good faith and integrity."—[Official Report, 1 March 1972; Vol. 832, c. 434.]
  There is no such intention.
  I respect the Chair, as I believe other Members do. I have considerable regard for those who have the difficult task of occupying it and conducting the business of the House. However, while I have respect for the Chair and its occupants, I do not believe that they are infallible. From time to time, we perform a service to the House and the country when we subject certain rulings to serious debate and scrutiny.
  That is precisely what we are doing. Through our actions this afternoon, we have done a considerable service to the House. I refuse to be buried by a load of humbug —the suggestion that Members never have the right to question the Chair about any matter. The people making that accusation know jolly well that it is over 20 years since, on another matter of vast importance, such a motion was moved. Therefore, let us dispense with that argument straight away.
  Happily, I do not have to go over the background, as that has inevitably been done by previous speakers. I shall turn to what is almost the crux of the matter. Amendment No. 27 was moved from the Front Bench. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who moved the group of amendments, immediately made it plain that, although the lead amendment was amendment No. 7, he was not interested in that one, would not be talking to it and would withdraw it. He emphasised that the debate was about amendment No. 27. It was not only my right hon. Friend who asserted that: the rest of the Committee concurred, because it knew that amendment No. 27 was the most important amendment in the group. The Committee then debated it as such.
  We know that the Government were horrified at the prospect of the amendment. The Minister of State said that it would wreck the Bill and the treaty as soon as he heard of my right hon. Friend's intention to insist on pressing the amendment to a vote. We then had the extraordinary incident of the Foreign Secretary coming to the House to repudiate on the advice of the Law Officers what the Minister of State had said. He said that the Minister had got it wrong and amendment No. 27 would have no effect on the treaty's ratification and the conclusion of the Bill. We took that advice with the scepticism that such contradictory advice deserved.
  The Chairman of the Committee was not particularly impressed, either. In a statement on 22 February, he said

  365
  that he was minded to take another debate on the important matter before he allowed a vote on amendment No. 27. The clear implication was that we should vote on the matter, and the Chairman had not been swayed by what the Attorney-General or the Minister of State had said in earlier debates.
  We now come to the heart of the matter. What happened? Why did the Chairman of Ways and Means change his mind after serious consideration? He first announced that he would select, not amendment No. 27, but different amendments, particularly new clause 75. He told us that first, I think, on 30 March. He then met a number of anxious hon. Members who thought that that would be a great mistake, and he reconsidered the issue and came forward on Thursday 15 April with further confirmation of his intention to select new clause 75 and not allow a vote on amendment No. 27.
  The Chairman's restatement led to considerable concern in the Committee and, after a long period of questions to the Chairman of Ways and Means, there was a debate in which the matters were thrashed out yet again. We came to the last stage of this when, on Monday, the Chairman reaffirmed his decision not to call amendment No. 27.
  As the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, the Chairman has helped the Committee by making statements on the reasons for his decisions. He opened proceedings on 19 April with a statement to the Committee about
  "the context in which my decision not to allow a separate Division to amendment No. 27 was taken."
  He said that the context included a number of factors such as the extent of the Committee's debate
  "the clarity and effect of an amendment, and its impact on the Bill."—[Official Report, 19 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 39.]
  The Chairman gave an interview, not just on Scottish television, but on BBC2 on Tuesday 13 April, the full text of which a number of hon. Members have seen, and a copy of which I have with me today. The Chairman was specifically asked about his selection of new clause 75 in place of amendment No. 27—indeed, why else would he appear on the programme? The Chairman was reported to have said:
  "You have got to go back to the fact that there was a significant Second Reading for the Bill. Therefore, the House had already said, as it moved into Committee, that it wanted the Bill to go through, that it would accept amendments on the workings of the Bill, like the one we have got on the Committee of the Regions, but you cannot wreck the Bill."
  Clearly, the Chairman considered that amendment No. 27 is or was a wrecking amendment. He made clear his views on new clause 75, the alternative choice, when he said:
  "What it really says"—
  new clause 75—
  "is that, yes, the Bill can go through, but the House shall have to have a vote after the Royal Assent on whether or not it wants the social chapter."
  There is a world of difference between amendments with such different effects. Despite what the Attorney-General said, amendment No. 27 would wreck the Bill and bring it to a halt. We know perfectly well that new clause 75, backed up by new clause 74, would have no such effect, and the Bill would receive Royal Assent.
  The issue lies at the heart of the matter. It makes plain the enormous difference between the effects of amendment
  366
  No. 27 and new clauses 75 and 74. Not surprisingly, the Government have said that they would have no difficulty in accepting new clause 75. They have no difficulty with that new clause, because they know that it will not stop the Bill and ratification of the treaty. The new clause is sufficiently vague not to lead to a satisfactory conclusion.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: I refer my right hon. Friend to the words of new clause 74, which states that the Bill cannot come into force before there is a debate on the social chapter. Therefore, it follows that the Government could not ratify the treaty before that debate has taken place.
  Mr. Shore: We shall see what the Government have to say and whether they would find any difficulty with it when we reach that stage. As we well know, as the vote on the social chapter is to be taken after Royal Assent, it will have an entirely different effect from a vote on amendment No. 27, which would prevent the Bill from receiving Royal Assent. There is a major difference between the two.
  I do not understand why it is said that, because amendment No. 27 stops or wrecks the Bill, it cannot be voted on because the House has given the Bill a Second Reading. Surely, if it were considered a wrecking amendment, it should never have been called in the first place—indeed, it would not have been called in the first place. The Chairman allowed it to appear among the selected amendments because he did not consider it to be a wrecking amendment. If it was a wrecking amendment, it should have been disqualified from the start, but it was not.
  Secondly, and even more puzzlingly, the Chair has already allowed a number of amendments—after they have been properly selected and debated—to be put to the vote. We had votes on amendment No. 79, which sought to remove the clause and the protocol relating to excessive deficits. It was selected, we debated it and then voted on it. No one could deny that the effect of my amendment No. 79 would be to wreck the Bill—it would have virtually torn the heart out of economic and monetary union.
  The same was true, not only of my other amendment No. 81, which was similarly voted on and rejected, but of a number of other amendments which would have wrecked the Bill, and which were moved, debated and voted on. They would have prevented the treaty from being ratified.
  Mr. George Robertson: Perhaps I can stop my right hon. Friend going down this route. Earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) made it clear that we are arguing, certainly from the Front Bench, that the Chairman of Ways and Means has already said that amendment No. 27 has integrity and does not fail the test.
  I know that my right hon. Friend does not have the pleasure and privilege of living in Scotland, but if he had, he would have seen BBC Scotland's admirable "Scottish Lobby" programme at 12 o'clock on Sunday, on which the Chairman of Ways and Means was interviewed again. He said that, had subsequent amendments not been tabled, he supposed that there might well have been a vote on amendment No. 27.
  Therefore, my right hon. Friend's argument on the basis of the first interview does not stand, because the Chairman has told the wider world, certainly Scotland,

  367
  that amendment No. 27 has integrity. That is the argument that we shall be using on Report to convince you, Madam Speaker, that you should select it.
  Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is confusing the House, and not for the first time. He is contradicting the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) who spoke earlier and his right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the shadow Foreign Secretary, both of whom have made it plain that there is a world of difference between amendment No. 27 and new clauses 74 and 75, and that they will continue to plead, argue and persuade that there should be a vote on it.
  If there is a vote on it, that will not please my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), as it will have the effect, at least for a time, of bringing the treaty and its procedures to a stop. That is a matter on which we fundamentally disagree. That brings me to my last point, which is why I think that this is such an important matter.
  Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend is making an important point about whether or not the Chair can select, let alone put to the vote, a matter which he regards as a wrecking amendment. Surely the whole problem is the difference between wrecking the Bill, which I do not think my right hon. Friend's amendment would do, and wrecking the treaty, which might well happen if the Bill becomes an Act. We are in a double-decked situation.
  Mr. Shore: It would have the effect of wrecking the treaty, and that is the important objective that I, personally, wish to achieve, without any doubt, concealment or apology.
  I now come to the final significance of amendment No. 27. Uniquely, it combines two features. First, it is the only amendment moved by the Opposition and properly debated which has been denied a vote. Even people such as myself, now a humble Back Bencher, have had amendments debated and voted upon in the middle of the night. My amendments were far more damaging than anything that was moved by the Front Bench.
  Secondly, it is the only amendment on which we and the Government know that they are likely to be defeated. It is the only amendment of serious substance, because there has been so much general tacit agreement among the three major parties and their leadership that the House will not be able to make such a challenge to the Bill and the treaty on any other issue. That unique combination makes amendment No. 27 essential to the good reputation of the House and its continued esteem among our fellow citizens.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House introduced the Government's response to the debate in the way that he did. He implied that anyone who was concerned about this issue was critical of my hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) and I have the privilege of sharing parliamentary responsibility for Northampton. Before he was elevated to his present, highly responsible position, I thought that he was a mere mortal and a human being. Since he has taken on responsibility for the most difficult parliamentary procedure since I have been a Member of Parliament, he has behaved in a most superhuman way. I
  368
  am not given to ladling on the syrup. The Chairman of Ways and Means has performed magnificently and I am delighted and overwhelmed that a Member for Northampton has responsibility for this Bill dealing with such an important measure. But—[Interruption.] It is the old political trick of ascribing to people with whom one disagrees motives that they do not have. We are not critical of the Chairman of Ways and Means; we admire him and the way in which he has carried out his duties and responsibilities. He has been highly responsive, articulate and effective.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House says that if we want to say anything about the motion we are attacking the Chair. We are not. We are saying something about the motion because we want a vote on amendment No. 27.
  As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said when he introduced the debate, where is the court of appeal? The Chairman of Ways and Means has made a decision and some of us disagree. We think that it is an important decision on an important issue. In this House of Commons, are we not able to express our concern and our desire to do something else?
  My hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means has performed magnificently. At some stage in future we may have a Chairman of Ways and Means who does not do so, who is culpable and makes mistakes. Is my right hon. Friend saying that in those circumstances the House must roll on its back and enjoy it and do nothing about it? Is that what democracy is about? Is that what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wants the House to do —not to have a view or a voice on the most important issue that has come before this House, this Parliament and this people in the past 25 years?
  I refer to page 405 of "Erskine May". The Chair is not required to give reasons and we all understand—[Interruption.] Most of us understand why. I respect the speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but I disagree with him on that point.
  "Erskine May" states:
  "Selection is made by the Chair"
  and one of the things that is taken into account is the prevention of "repetition and overlapping". It may well be that repetition and overlapping were considered when the Chairman was looking at new clauses 74 and 75 and amendment No. 27. But they do not overlap; they are different in detail. Amendment No. 27 has financial implications; new clauses 74 and 75 are wholly different and the House knows that. They are different in detail and, by golly, they are different in their impact. The House should be able to vote on both.
  The point has been made that we have to protect minorities. It is common ground that a majority in the House want a vote on amendment No. 27. If a minority wants a vote on an important issue, they should have one, but if a majority of the House wants it, should not the majority of the House have a vote on an important issue?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) brought out the tired old cliche about the Second Reading of the Bill. The Second Reading was nearly a year ago. The world has changed and I am sorry that my hon. Friend has not changed in that long period of time. If a week is a long time in politics, a year is a generation.
  Everyone would agree that the treaty of European union is a massive issue. It is irreversible. Once passed, powers will pass from this House to other institutions.

  369
  Rightly, our constituents are greatly concerned about that. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, amendment No. 27 carries with it massive implications. Our constituents feel that it could make a difference. On this great issue people's perceptions are vital. In this case, as we continue our debates, their perception is that the House is entitled to a vote on such a major issue. If we do not have one, orders will come from European institutions in years to come without the House having been able to vote—
  Mr. Milligan rose—
  Mr. Marlow: I am coming to a conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hurrah!"] What a chance to get my second wind.
  The perception of our constituents is that the House must have a vote, if possible, on such an important issue.
  "Erskine May" refers to the 1966–67 appendices to the minutes of evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure by the then Speaker on the Report stage of public Bills. It states that the Report stage is not unimportant.
  "The Bill as it emerges from Committee is often a much modified Bill"—
  this one has been modified—
  "the Opposition"—
  I presume, in a wider sense—
  "may now have a new attitude to parts of it … The deliberations of the Committee, even those which have not resulted in amendments to the Bill, have often been of considerable effect on the thinking of both sides. This reveals itself at the Report stage."
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who spoke of important issues, carefully debated in Committee, but still containing vital matters worthy of a last look. Hence they should be selected for debate on Report. I hope, Madam Speaker, that we will be able to look at this subject again then.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I should like to speak quietly for a moment or two to the Leader of the House and to hark back to what he said at the beginning of his speech. He used the word—I do not think I misquote him —"unpalatable". According to him, what has happened is either palatable or unpalatable, depending on whether a Member is pro or anti-European. That was the gist of what he said.
  A number of us feel rather differently. Wrongly, in the view of many of my colleagues, I have from time to time voted on closures and other matters with the Government. I am a Euro-fanatic, if that is the right word, but last Thursday, although I sat here as quiet as a church mouse, I felt increasingly uncomfortable when my hon. Friends were making their points of order. It seems very odd, even to those of us who hold passionately pro-European views, that a vote should be denied us on a matter, whether one likes it or not, of enormous substance. I ask the House's forgiveness if this is not an exact analogy, but it felt rather like being a forward in a football match who knows that he was yards offside but the goal was allowed. There seemed something not quite right about the decision.
  I said nothing at the time, but I was greatly influenced by the comments I heard in my constituency over the weekend. I do not suggest for a moment that all our constituents understand the finer points of "Erskine May",
  370
  but somehow the fact had percolated through that the House of Commons was not acting quite properly—that there was something unfair going on. In schoolboy slang, there was a general feeling that there had been a bit of a swizz.
  A deeper question was also being asked. It was voiced, too, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who received a great deal of agreement from the country, last Thursday. It was to the effect that we should ask what the House of Commons is for. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made the same point extremely eloquently. Constituents ask what the House of Commons is for if it cannot make up its mind on the question of the social chapter. They ask whether we can think of a way of bringing the matter to a decision.
  Mr. Milligan: The hon. Gentleman says that amendment No. 27 covers an issue of enormous importance. Can he explain why new clauses 74 and 75 do not cover that same issue, and why what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has described as a ticking timebomb appears to have become a ticking mouse?
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend must answer for himself on ticking timebombs. I am extraordinarily cautious about my use of language, but it is not arguable that there is no difference between new clauses 74 and 75 and amendment No. 27. If there is no difference, all we can say is that a great many serious Members of Parliament believe that there is one.
  Perhaps all these are the troubles that arise when Ministers want to have Maastricht a la carte. Once they start chopping and changing, they cannot be surprised when they find themselves in such difficulties. The House should be in no doubt that a great many of our constituents understand a vast amount more than some hon. Members this afternoon have given them credit for. They have the gut feeling that there has not been fair play. That is why I hope that there will be some change of attitude towards this subject.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has touched on one of the fundamentals of our debate today. We are talking about the functions of the chairmanship of Standing Committees and of Committees of the whole House, and in particular we are discussing discretion.
  Madam Speaker has been telling us that the debate is about the discretion of the Chair. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has let his views be known, allbeit rather loudly; the views expressed by his colleague, the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), have been delivered with characteristic courtesy and patience throughout this difficult Committee stage.
  It has not been denied even by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee that if confidence in the Chair is to be sustained, and if our procedures are to inspire confidence in the country, there must be an opportunity for debates of this sort when an important matter about which there are strong feelings arises. I therefore reject the accusations by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who said a couple of days ago, as did the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, that there was something improper about holding such a debate. I suggest that, because of the issues involved, this debate is quite proper.

  371
  The essence of parliamentary debate is the opportunity it affords to ventilate an issue. That is what we are doing now. It is what the Standing Orders allow for. We also, however, operate on the basis of a Question. When a motion is proposed, having been selected by the Chair, we have a debate. There is evidence today that the debate under discussion, in which amendment No. 27 was the main feature, exercised the House, and there were strong reasons why there should have been a vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has pointed out that the public expect, as is their right, that if a matter of great importance is debated, it should be brought to a conclusion by a decision.
  The Chair has a problem because of the link between the Bill and the treaty. In certain respects something that wrecks a Bill may not be selectable or, if it is, it may not be put to the vote. That is for the discretion of the Chair. We are concerned not with the Bill but with the treaty. We have to decide whether the House will provide the Government with sufficient power to ratify the treaty. Therefore, something which may be within the compass of the Bill, because it restricts what can be done, may wreck the treaty. That is a matter for the House and it is not a question on which the Chair should exercise discretion, as would happen in a Standing Committee. In Standing Committees we deal with domestic legislation, which is reversible, and which may be changed by a different Government.
  Some people want the European Communities (Amendment) Bill to be irreversible in regard to citizenship of the United Kingdom, a matter of momentous importance. Therefore, democracy and the procedure of the House must be seen to work. It is the same with justice which must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The confidence of the population in our procedures must be maintained; we must demonstrate that our procedure is above board.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman's views are held sincerely. When new clauses 74 and 75 came into play, the Chairman of Ways and Means had to make a choice. While we may not agree with the choice, nevertheless it was his choice. We can hardly blame him for making his choice, nor can the hon. Gentleman, given that new clauses 74 and 75 were tabled by members of his party.
  Mr. Spearing: Let us go through it carefully. The Chairman had a choice. As matters developed, I suppose we can say that the range of that choice varied. I do not think that any of us would have liked to have been in that position. The point is that when the choice was made, it was exclusive and not inclusive. Something which was reckoned to be a strong possibility—I put it no higher—was excluded. People were disappointed. I will not use the word, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but some people, very distinguished people, reflected a view and said that they were cheated. If people feel like that because a discretionary choice involved exclusion rather than inclusion, we must question the use of that discretion.
  I expect it has happened to other people too, but I was moved out of the Chair on one occasion, about 30 years ago. I hasten to add that it was not in respect of any function in the House. The feeling about it was strong and was of great personal concern to me at the time. The incident arose from a ruling which I made when in the
  372
  chair at a meeting of a voluntary organisation. There was no question of a motion of mild comment or even criticism, which would cover the motion before the House. I was moved out of the chair forthwith because my friends disagreed with a vital ruling which I had made. The matter was resolved, but when I spoke to them afterwards I began to see their point of view. I realised that they had every right to propose a motion to remove me from the chair.
  I would not agree with it happening here perhaps more than once every 20 years. It should not be done without good reason. Having been Chairman of a Select Committee for nine years, I know the problems. There must be an opportunity for people to ventilate their concern. We are doing so now in a proper, democratic way. If we could not do so, the power of discretion which we put in the charge of any Chair could become wider and other Chairmen might hot know that at any time their decisions were under scrutiny. If decisions were not under scrutiny, the power of the Chair would not be exercised with proper caution. Indeed, after a time the power of the Chair would be diminished.
  The Chair is a servant of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned Speaker Lenthall. The Chair is a servant of the corporate Committee or of the House, to do what the House wishes. The House wishes its procedures to be beyond reproach so that hon. Members who wish to vote on a motion, having debated it, may do so. Anything which stops that happening raises a question and will be viewed, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, as a bit of a swizz. That might be an understatement in respect of the possible consequences of amendment No. 27.
  You have listened to most of the debate, Madam Speaker. Report stage is there for a purpose: the Speaker can take an overall view of all the circumstances and is not bound by some of the precedents which are properly adhered to by the Chair of Committees. Whatever we decide now, there will be a Report stage. A matter of major controversy was selected for debate, and was debated. I ask you, Madam Speaker, in your capacity as a servant of the House and, through that, as a servant of the people whom we represent and who expect us not only to debate but to reach a decision, to bear in mind in your judgment all the matters raised in the debate.
  Mr. Timothy Wood (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 337, Noes 86.

  Division No. 242]

  [6.58 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Baldry, Tony

  Alton, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Amess, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Ancram, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bayley, Hugh

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Ashby, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  373

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  French, Douglas

  Booth, Hartley

  Fry, Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gallie, Phil

  Bowis, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Garnier, Edward

  Brazier, Julian

  Garrett, John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gorst, John

  Burns, Simon

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Burt, Alistair

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butler, Peter

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hague, William

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Cash, William

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hannam, Sir John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Churchill, Mr

  Harris, David

  Clappison, James

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hayes, Jerry

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heald, Oliver

  Colvin, Michael

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Congdon, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Conway, Derek

  Hendry, Charles

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hicks, Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Couchman, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Horam, John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Day, Stephen

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dover, Den

  Ingram, Adam

  Duncan, Alan

  Jack, Michael

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dunn, Bob

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jessel, Toby

  Dykes, Hugh

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Eggar, Tim

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Elletson, Harold

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Enright, Derek

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Evennett, David

  Key, Robert

  Faber, David

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Fabricant, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Forman, Nigel

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Knox, David

  Forth, Eric

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Foulkes, George

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Leigh, Edward

  Freeman, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  374

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lidington, David

  Sackville, Tom

  Lightbown, David

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Luff, Peter

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shersby, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Sims, Roger

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Madel, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Malone, Gerald

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mans, Keith

  Spring, Richard

  Marland, Paul

  Sproat, Iain

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

  Steen, Anthony

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stephen, Michael

  Maxton, John

  Stern, Michael

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Stewart, Allan

  Merchant, Piers

  Streeter, Gary

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Sumberg, David

  Milligan, Stephen

  Sykes, John

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, John M.(Solihull)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thomason, Roy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Norris, Steve

  Tyler, Paul

  O'Neill, Martin

  Viggers, Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walden, George

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wallace, James

  Page, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Paice, James

  Ward, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pawsey, James

  Watts, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wells, Bowen

  Pickles, Eric

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Whittingdale, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Redwood, John

  Willetts, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wilshire, David

  Richards, Rod

  Wilson, Brian

  Riddick, Graham

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wood, Timothy

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Yeo, Tim

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Mr. Andrew Mackay and

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Austin-Walker, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Barnes, Harry

  375

  Beggs, Roy

  Leighton, Ron

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Lewis, Terry

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Litherland, Robert

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Livingstone, Ken

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Loyden, Eddie

  Burden, Richard

  McAllion, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  McKelvey, William

  Canavan, Dennis

  Mahon, Alice

  Cann, Jamie

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Clapham, Michael

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Cohen, Harry

  Mullin, Chris

  Connarty, Michael

  O'Hara, Edward

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Olner, William

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Parry, Robert

  Cummings, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Redmond, Martin

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Dowd, Jim

  Rowlands, Ted

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Simpson, Alan

  Eastham, Ken

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Etherington, Bill

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Snape, Peter

  Flynn, Paul

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D.(Strgfd)

  Fraser, John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Galloway, George

  Trimble, David

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Hain, Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Hanson, David

  Winnick, David

  Heppell, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Wise, Audrey

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly:—
  The House divided: Ayes 81, Noes 450.

  Division No. 243]

  [7.10 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Flynn, Paul

  Ainger, Nick

  Galloway, George

  Austin-Walker, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Barnes, Harry

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Barron, Kevin

  Hain, Peter

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hanson, David

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Heppell, John

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Hood, Jimmy

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Burden, Richard

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cann, Jamie

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Clapham, Michael

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Lewis, Terry

  Clelland, David

  Litherland, Robert

  Cohen, Harry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Connarty, Michael

  Loyden, Eddie

  Corston, Ms Jean

  McAllion, John

  Cummings, John

  McKelvey, William

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Madden, Max

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mahon, Alice

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Mullin, Chris

  Etherington, Bill

  Olner, William

  376

  Parry, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Pickthall, Colin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Pope, Greg

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D.(Strgfd)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Purchase, Ken

  Wareing, Robert N

  Redmond, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Wise, Audrey

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Simpson, Alan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

  Snape, Peter

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Allen, Graham

  Carttiss, Michael

  Alton, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Amess, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Ancram, Michael

  Clappison, James

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Ashby, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Coe, Sebastian

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Coffey, Ann

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Colvin, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Congdon, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)

  Conway, Derek

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Baldry, Tony

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bates, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Cran, James

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Beggs, Roy

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Bell, Stuart

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Darling, Alistair

  Benton, Joe

  Davidson, Ian

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Blair, Tony

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Blunkett, David

  Day, Stephen

  Boateng, Paul

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Booth, Hartley

  Devlin, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Dewar, Donald

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dixon, Don

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dobson, Frank

  Bowis, John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Boyes, Roland

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dover, Den

  Bradley, Keith

  Duncan, Alan

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Brazier, Julian

  Dunn, Bob

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Eggar, Tim

  Brown, N.(N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Elletson, Harold

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Enright, Derek

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Burt, Alistair

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Butler, Peter

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Byers, Stephen

  Evennett, David

  Caborn, Richard

  Faber, David

  377

  Fabricant, Michael

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Hoyle, Doug

  Fatchett, Derek

  Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Hunter, Andrew

  Fisher, Mark

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Forman, Nigel

  Hutton, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Illsley, Eric

  Forth, Eric

  Ingram, Adam

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Jack, Michael

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Foulkes, George

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Jessel, Toby

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Fraser, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Freeman, Roger

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  French, Douglas

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Fry, Peter

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)

  Gale, Roger

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Gallie, Phil

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Gapes, Mike

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Key, Robert

  Garnier, Edward

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Garrett, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  George, Bruce

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Gorst, John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Graham, Thomas

  Knox, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Legg, Barry

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Gunnell, John

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Hague, William

  Lidington, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Lightbown, David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Lord, Michael

  Hardy, Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Harris, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Harvey, Nick

  Macdonald, Calum

  Haselhurst, Alan

  McFall, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hayes, Jerry

  Maclean, David

  Heald, Oliver

  McLeish, Henry

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Maclennan, Robert

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Henderson, Doug

  McMaster, Gordon

  Hendry, Charles

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hicks, Robert

  McWilliam, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Madel, David

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Mans, Keith

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Marland, Paul

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Horam, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dtord)

  Martlew, Eric

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  378

  Maxton, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Meacher, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Meale, Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Merchant, Piers

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Michael, Alun

  Shersby, Michael

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Sims, Roger

  Milburn, Alan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mills, Iain

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Spellar, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

  Spring, Richard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Sproat, Iain

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mudie, George

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Murphy, Paul

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Needham, Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stephen, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stevenson, George

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stewart, Allan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stott, Roger

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Norris, Steve

  Straw, Jack

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Streeter, Gary

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Sumberg, David

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Sweeney, Walter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Sykes, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Taylor, John M.(Solihull)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Thomason, Roy

  Paice, James

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thurnham, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)

  Pendry, Tom

  Tracey, Richard

  Pickles, Eric

  Tredinnick, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Trend, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Trotter, Neville

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Turner, Dennis

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tyler, Paul

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Vaz, Keith

  Radice, Giles

  Viggers, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Redwood, John

  Walden, George

  Reid, Dr John

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wallace, James

  Richards, Rod

  Waller, Gary

  Riddick, Graham

  Walley, Joan

  Robathan, Andrew

  Ward, John

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Watts, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wells, Bowen

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Whitney, Ray

  Rogers, Allan

  Whittingdale, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Willetts, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wilshire, David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wilson, Brian

  Sackville, Tom

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Wolfson, Mark

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wood, Timothy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Worthington, Tony

  379

  Yeo, Tim

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew MacKay.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day
  European Communities (Amendment) Bill

    Considered in Committee [Progress, 19 April]
    [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [19 April], That the clause (Entry into force) be read a Second time:
    `This Act shall come into force on a day appointed by the Secretary of State by order in a statutory instrument.'. —[Mr. Shore.]
    Question again proposed.
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris)rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    The Chairman: Before I call the first speaker, I have a short announcement to make.
    In the circumstances, I think that it would be for the convenience of hon. Members generally if I were to say now that I am prepared, after the Division on new clause 8, to select for a separate Division new clause 49, in the name of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould).
    I remind the Committee that in this debate we are also considering the following:
    New clause 46—Ascertainment of national opinion (No. 2)—
    `(1) Immediately after the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council making such provision as Her Majesty thinks appropriate for ascertaining, by means of a confirmatory referendum or otherwise, the preponderance of national opinion with respect to the commencement of this Act.
    (2) If a draft laid before Parliament under this section is approved by a Resolution of each House, Her Majesty in Council may make an Order in the terms of the draft; provided that the Order shall not be made unless separate provision has been made by Parliament for defraying out of public funds any expenses to be incurred by a Minister of the Crown or Government Department in carrying the Order into effect.'.
    Amendment (a) to new clause 46, in subsection (1), at end insert
    'and also the incorporation or otherwise of the United Kingdom into the Agreement annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy.'.
    New clause 48—Commencement (Opinion of the House)—
    'This Act shall not come into force until the House of Commons has expressed a view on the desirability of a referendum in each component nation of the United Kingdom with respect to the commencement of this Act.'.
    Amendment (a) to new clause 48, at end add
    `and on whether such referenda should consult on the incorporation or otherwise of the United Kingdom into the Agreement annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy.'.
    New clause 49—Commencement provisions—
    `This Act shall take effect on the first day of January 1996 or on such earlier date as may be specified in any subsequent Act of Parliament as the date for the holding of a consultative referendum to establish whether or not majority opinion supports The Treaty on European Union.'.
    Amendment (a) to new clause 49, at end add
    `and also the incorporation or otherwise of the United Kingdom into the Agreement annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy.'.
    New clause 50—Referendum Motion—
    'Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall place a motion before Parliament which will provide the opportunity for members of both Houses to express a view on the desirability or otherwise of seeking the views of the electors of the United Kingdom on the merits of the decision taken by Parliament in relation to the Act.'.
    Amendment (a) to new clause 50, at end add
    'and also on the incorporation or otherwise of the United Kingdom into the Agreement annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy.'.
    New clause 53—Transfer of powers—
    'No power transferred by this Act from the United Kingdom to European institutions shall be so transferred unless and until the House of Commons has had an opportunity to assess whether it is expedient to measure, and if so by what means, the degree of support within the United Kingdom.'.
    Amendment (a) to new clause 53, at end add
    'for the Treaty on European Union and also for the incorporation or otherwise of the United Kingdom into the Agreement annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy.'.
    7.26 pm
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: The association between new clauses 8 and 46 is important because, without it, the result would not be as effective as new clause 46 by itself. I note that new clause 46 is headed "Ascertainment of national opinion". I suggest that the better heading would be "Trust the people".
    In discussing a new constitutional arrangement—there have been difficulties for the Chair and for some hon. Members—we have been addressing substantial constitu-tional changes that lie behind a two-clause Bill. In doing so, the intention or purpose of the Maastricht treaty has not been clear to everyone in the United Kingdom. As a result, the nation as a whole has suffered.
    The Government, those on the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrats have not over-exercised themselves in trying to explain in detail what is sought through the Maastricht treaty. A continuing theme of the electorate generally is to ask what Maastricht is all about—"Why are you going on about it? What is the fuss? What is going on?". Over the many days in Committee, we have tried patiently to unpick arguments and to demonstrate—this has been done by hon. Members on both sides of the House—that it is proposed that there should be a significant change in the balance of our constitution.
    At 50 years of age, I feel old-fashioned when I talk about old verities. Before I became a Member of the House of Commons, it was unthinkable to me that we would be arguing about a transference from democratic government to new arrangements. That is why passion, anger, apprehension and fear are felt by many right hon. and hon. Members and by many other people throughout the country.
    Our constitution is founded on the democratic principle, which is government of the people, by the people, for the people, but that is not the system envisaged under the Maastricht treaty. It is, in fact, a system almost of "arrangements", whereby we transfer decisions over whole areas of life—areas that have been subject to the decisions of the House and have been absolute in that term, subject to such time as we wish to repeal or reform them.
    382
    7.30 pm
    As has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Stafford (Mr. Cash), the Bill demonstrates that the British Government are proposing that the British people enter a new political state. It is as simple as that. They give no reasons as to why this is absolutely essential. They indicate that it is in the national interest, but will not give details.
    It has always been open to the Government to issue a White Paper. In the 1970s, a White Paper was issued, reassuring Members of Parliament and the country at large that the absolute principle within our conventions of ministerial accountability would remain in place and that ultimately a British Minister could exercise a veto.
    Maastricht has no truck with any of that nonsense. The old verity of democratic control—whereby the people, when they voted, could change Governments and thereby change laws—is lost in large measure under the provisions of the Bill.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Is not my hon. Friend making a critique of the European Communities Act 1972? Was it not in that Act, whereby we joined the Community, that the system of Community law—which is really what he is attacking—was instituted, approved by the House and subsequently approved by a referendum? Rather than the modifications in the Single European Act or the treaty of Maastricht, is it not that step, 20 years ago, which produced the situation that he is now attacking?
    Mr. Shepherd: My right hon. Friend has made what I consider a very valid point. When I was a man of 30 and these arguments were put, I did not realise the significance of a new system of law to which the British system of law became subordinate. That did not come out to me, as an elector, during the debates. That was profoundly important. I have come to recognise the difficulties that all persons, whether of good will to these arrangements or not, have subsequently had to face as it has progressively moved on in what I think a right hon. Friend of ours called the ratchet effect, after leaving the Front Bench.
    Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will recollect that between 1972 and 1975, when the referendum was held, we were told that we would be retaining the right of the veto and that that would put our Government and Ministers in a strong position; that we would never have things forced upon us. The debate that took place at that time was largely on a false prospectus, because we did not go into the details adequately—except those of us campaigning the other way. We were not listened to; we were told we were wrong. Subsequently, we have been shown to be right.
    Mr. Shepherd: My hon. Friend was wiser than I. I now absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend says. Like the general public at large, I could not weigh things fully then, and I voted in the referendum for the renegotiated terms of our membership. It was a judgment that I had to make because I believed in the arguments. I remember well that the basic argument that was predicted was that it was in our economic interests. The "cold bath"—I think it was called—of Europe would revitalise our fogged-up and

    383
    fuggy processes, and the dynamism of the new competitive impetus would bring us into a new era of Elysian fields and perpetual harmony.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that when those in the "no" campaign were putting forward the accurate, clear and precise words now said by the Foreign Secretary, we were told that we were deliberately misleading the public and causing unnecessary trouble? Does he further accept that if the clear, precise and truthful words said by the Foreign Secretary had been said during the 1972 referendum, people might well have voted no, as they should have?
    Mr. Shepherd: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend now. As life goes on, of course, we make different judgments as further and better particulars, experience and our own wisdom improve.
    We started with a system of democratic accountable government. However imperfect it was—however much we made fools of ourselves in the eyes of the public—there was, nevertheless, a basic trust that if the people voted and expressed a view, it affected the laws and government of our country. That is—or was—fundamental to our system of government.
    Mr. Stephen Milligan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Shepherd: No; I want to develop my argument.
    Between that period and today, we have been confronted with what effectively, behind a two-clause Bill, is the outline of a new constitution. That constitution proposes that the whole range of issues that we discuss, whether they be education, transport systems or—most important to someone like myself—citizenship, are to be secured by two clauses, and we may not change the substance of that constitution. I can think of no arrangement in the development of a free and democratic world—certainly within the English-speaking traditions —whereby two Front Benches willingly accept the concept that we may dismiss the democratic argument.
    That is why I call it the old verity. I feel old fashioned, standing here and trying to propose a new clause called "Ascertainment of national opinion"—what I would call "Trust the people." We cannot doubt that transferring control over economic and monetary policies to an unelected central bank somewhere else means that the institution of government becomes a Council of Ministers, meeting in secret, to pass laws on these matters at the sole suggestion of the centralising bureaucracy—the single institutional framework, as it is called—that permeates the new arrangements.
    We should use the old tests of democracy—"How do I change the law?" That is a simple question which we have taken for granted over the years. It is so evident and so obvious—you change your Member of Parliament or convince him by argument. Ultimately, if your Member of Parliament is unsympathetic to your argument, you campaign, argue and reason as part of a democratic debate, which has an outcome in the laws under which you live.
    Our rule of law has that as its essential trust: it expects obedience. We in the House all expect obedience to the law, and we can demand it on the basis that there is a proper democratic route by which we can change the law. It may be Anglo-Saxon, English, Scottish or Northern
    384
    Irish—it may be peculiar to our own islands—but, within the English-speaking world, it is the very basis of our understanding of democracy.
    That is at issue here. The debates on the Bill have, if they have done nothing else, demonstrated very clearly the framework of the new constitutional arrangements. I can think of no system of democratic government on earth that would take away the rights of ordinary people, without explanation, and ultimately without regard to their view in the matter.
    That is the purpose behind the new clause—to return the question to our own fellow electors. None of us is different from them. We have the privilege to represent them, but the powers that we exercise are their powers. I am now a low Tory—I have had the benefit of high Toryism—but this is a people's democracy. This is our Parliament, which will determine the framework of our lives.
    I listened very carefully to what was said at our party conference. There is a greater national interest. The national interest, no less, is invoked but there is no explanation of why that national interest should do away with the democratic traditions in this country secured over two or three centuries. The long, slow march of Everyman is set aside in a single Act of Parliament which is intended to be irrevocable and irreversible.
    In those very phrases, we contradict the conventions of which we were so proud. We were always deemed not to need a written constitution in the United Kingdom because we were secure in who we were, and in our conventions and arrangements. Dicey, Jennings, and every constitutional writer that we have had, asserted them. Indeed, in a half-hearted way, what I now think of as a miserable tome, "Erskine May", records that. It records the moving away from democratic government. We feel the diffidence within the House now that we feel that there are so many things we can no longer challenge. That is reflected in the diffidence of hon. Members. There are so many things that we feel we cannot challenge. Gosh, what poor imitations we are of our forebears. But we are the inheritors of a great system. Therefore, my old verity—the verity on which most of us were elected to this House—ought to be proclaimed and shouted for.
    If we are to give away democratic government, we must be able to put that argument clearly to the people. That may well happen, with megaphones in Downing street, megaphones upstairs in Committee and Front Benchers getting an overbearing voice into the ear of the public. But never doubt—out there is the drip, drip, drip that something ain't right about these arrangements.
    When, last Thursday, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said that it was a stitch up, he struck a chord with the people. They are deeply dissatisfied with this measure. They are right to be dissatisfied. I have said, from the time of the last election, that I cannot vote for the passing of this measure without the issue being returned to the British people for their decision. I have not heard one word from the party that used to fight for the right to a vote, or from the Treasury Bench, as to why the surrender of democratic, accountable government is right. As historians look at the record of each day's debate, they will find that the most extraordinary feature of this one is that the great, democratic parties of the United Kingdom were unable at any time during the debate to address the question of democratic government. Democracy has gone out of fashion.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: My hon. Friend speaks about the surrender of democracy. I know how strongly he feels on the subject, but does he not recognise that not just this country but the 11 other member states of the Community are deeply attached to the principle of democracy? Is my hon. Friend suggesting that all the people of Europe have been bamboozled by this extraordinary conspiracy to overthrow democracy? Even if he believes that that is credible, is it not slightly perverse of him, if he is concerned about democracy, democratic accountability and the democratic deficit in the Community, to oppose the Maastricht treaty, which incorporates a number of steps to increase democratic accountability? My hon. Friend mentioned that the Council of Ministers meets in secret, but he seems to have forgotten that at the Edinburgh summit it was agreed for the first time that those meetings should now be open. Does he not welcome that fact?
    Mr. Shepherd: I have never claimed that I am well schooled, but after remarks like that I feel remarkably well schooled in the traditions and constitution of my country. I am not responsible for how other noble, great countries pursue their own systems of government. However, we have a duty to pay regard to our system of government. I was elected by the people of Aldridge-Brownhills to try to safeguard that with which I was entrusted. If my constituents' right to democratic government is to be taken away, ought they not to be asked about it?
    This extraordinary legislation is predicated without a mandate. The ill schooled may suggest that there is a general mandate. As we pointed out at the last election, three parties took for granted the fact that this was to come about. I searched and waited. Where was the appeal from the party leaders—"We must have Maastricht's form of government"? But that is only one route out of many that the Community may take.
    The Government now tell us that at the next intergovernmental conference the shape of the new constitution will be refined in our interests, since this one is not satisfactory. The fact is that it is not satisfactory for the whole of Europe. My case, though, is based not on what is satisfactory for the whole of Europe but on what is appropriate for Britain.
    There were two copies of the Conservative party manifesto in my constituency. My agent had one; I had the other. It was forwarded, unfortunately, after I had had the opportunity to give guidance to my electorate as to the principles by which I stood. I am told by Conservative central office that between 120,000 and 130,000 copies of the manifesto were published. I imagine that, somewhere, there is a warehouse in which they are gathering dust, awaiting the wonderful day when my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford will be able to auction them off as a lot of great constitutional significance. All that the Conservative party manifesto said about Maastricht was, "Haven't the Government done well to negotiate the Maastricht agreement?"
    I have no idea what the Labour party manifesto said, because it did not seem to penetrate Aldridge-Brownhills. Some of my constituents were, no doubt, blessed with gaining possession of the Labour party's central doctrine on Maastricht. Conservative central office also advised us by means of a little leaflet—a quick guide to what the Conservative party stood for. There were many more copies of that leaflet. In fact, we used it as an election
    386
    leaflet. We scoured it for the new form of constitution that the Government invest so much faith in. They did not discuss it during the general election campaign, but they have troubled the House of Commons with it for nearly 15 months.
    Let us consider the sequence. The Maastricht treaty was never available to the House of Commons. It fluttered in —the Minister of State claimed with pride some responsibility, and rightly so, for this—through the window of the Library. There were mimeographed copies of the treaty, but it was incomprehensible and difficult to read. A few Members were troubled by it, but the Government's arguments centred on what would be excluded from discussion. They secured two exclusions, but it is unsatisfactory to approach a constitutional issue in that way.
    We had a debate last November in which I spoke on that matter. Although both the Treasury Bench and the Opposition Bench should have taken it on board, not one word was said about democracy. That is shameful. We ought to have greater regard for that which justifies our presence here.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. John Gorst: The way that my hon. Friend talks suggests that he believes that British democracy for British people can be performed only in a theatre called the House of Commons or the Palace of Westminster. Let us substitute for the word "democracy" the word "Shakespeare". If, instead of taking the view that Shakespeare can be performed only in British theatres, we took Shakespeare and democracy for the British people abroad and tried to make it work in a much larger entity, as well as trying to make it work in specific ways here, would that not be much better? Is my hon. Friend not taking far too narrow a view of the issue?
    Mr. Shepherd: I am not sure what my hon. Friend is driving at. I am here by virtue of the fact of my citizenship. I am British. I was born in Scotland and represent a west midlands constituency. I have to look to those who are my ain folk, if I may use that term. I have to consider what are the best ways in which we can form a system of government. I can think of no finer and more civilised form of government that reflects the will of the people than democratic self-government through our institutions. We are capable of corrupting them, as these measures have demonstrated. We corrupt them by our lack of candour about them.
    We are told that Maastricht represents a great gain. The national interest, no less, is the argument. We are told to pander to the people and tell them why their freedoms, rights and long-secured traditions, attitudes and ways of looking at life, formed within our hearts in this common society, must pass away and that they must be ruled by a Council of Ministers, still meeting in secrecy, apart from a few televised illustrations of what could come about, and by a bureaucracy under Mr. Delors—unelected, but acting as though he were the prime minister of a great state, no less—who wants to be the President of the Commission.
    The treaty seeks to make us citizens of somewhere else. Slowly, the Government—or Ministers, including the Leader of the House, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—have come, to their surprise, to understand that the treaty makes the Queen a citizen of Europe. I make that point to

    387
    demonstrate a profound shift in the concept of Queen and Parliament. I know that this idea is not well explained in our schools. The Secretary of State for Education should perhaps consider the introduction of a course on British democracy. That might demonstrate that we have something to be proud of and that there courses through our bones the means of control over our state.
    The central thrust is that we have a constitution. I am being asked to be a citizen by Act of Parliament on a matter of the most profound sentiment, but without any reference to me. How do I feel? How does any British person outside the House feel when he is told that he is now a citizen of a new political organisation in which the United Kingdom is a subordinate constituent and in which the European Court of Justice is the supreme court which will interpret the laws outside our traditions and courts?
    Sir Terence Higgins: My hon. Friend is speaking as if the referendum is the traditional form of British parliamentary democracy. The reality is that it is our representative system of democracy which forms the basis of this place, and it is the referendum which will corrupt that system. Has not my hon. Friend learnt from his mistake last time when he voted in a referendum which effectively set in concrete the arrangements made at that time and which made it far more difficult for any subsequent changes to be introduced?
    Mr. Shepherd: I am slightly surprised by what my right hon. Friend says about the concept of the referendum. I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is here. The then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, said that these things would be achieved with the full-hearted consent of the British people and Parliament. It is a language which one does not usually associate with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and, as often as not, it is attributed to the Foreign Secretary. Even in those words, there is a profound understanding that, to secure the changes, one requires the whole-hearted consent not only of Parliament but of the British people. That theme has run through the history of the Conservative party in the 20th century.
    I put on the record the Conservative party's constitutional amendment of 1911 moved by A. J. Balfour.
    Mr. Nicholas Budgen: My hon. Friend and I have often discussed this question. He and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) put their arguments in almost continental terms of great principles, but our unwritten constitution has muddled its way forward not by the exposition of great abstract principles such as they suggest but by ordinary people saying in a muddling way that something is not quite right. They do not understand why it is not quite right, but they know that something should be done.
    Surely one of the strongest cases for the referendum is based not on abstract principles as to whether, on the whole, we are in favour of a referendum or not—on the whole, I am much against referendums—but on the fact that something is not quite right about the extremely authoritarian way in which the Government have dealt with their supporters. They have encouraged constituency supporters to attack sitting Members of Parliament in a way which is deeply antipathetic to the traditions of the Tory party. There is also something not quite right about the disgraceful way in which the Government have dealt with the House.
    388
    It is because there is something not quite right that those of us who think not in terms of great principles but in pragmatic and Tory terms come to the reluctant conclusion that the only way in which the Government's disgraceful behaviour can be rectified is by dealing with it through the otherwise rather unattractive mechanism of a referendum.
    Mr. Shepherd: I always enjoy the interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). I have no doubt that his course has been to protect the interests of the citizens of Wolverhampton so that they may vote on every matter with authority, and that the preservation of that principle has been central to his arguments.
    Balfour ended his speech of 8 May 1911 on his constitutional amendment with these words:
    "I am quite convinced the more this proposal is talked of in this House and the country the more it will receive support. There are difficulties in its application … but still in the Referendum lies our one hope of getting the sort of constitutional security which every other country but our own enjoys … I further believe, so far from its demoralising, that it would be a great practical education in politics. How many elections are now fought on purely personal grounds. How many … give their vote blue or yellow because they have always voted so, or because their fathers voted so. How often a man is content to say, 'I stick to my party, I am loyal to the principles I always professed' or, like a Scotch voter … who said, 'Tariff Reform is an excellent policy, and as soon as the Liberals bring it in, I will vote for it most heartily'"—
    gone are those days.
    "How many elections are decided by sentiments of that kind, and very respectable sentiments they are, too. I really think to have a controversy thrashed out in the House and then in the Second Chamber, and then refer it to the electors … not on the merits of either … the Government or the party, but on the merits of the Bill itself, that that, so far from currupting the sources of democratic life, would only be a great education for political people … I am convinced whatever is done now that the controversy that has been started on this great method of constitutional reform must and will bear fruit, and that before long, and practically in the lifetime of all of us, we may see this great democratic engine brought into practice."—[Official Report, 8 May 1911; Vol. XXV, c. 935.]
    It took many years and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to introduce a referendum to the United Kingdom in the form of border polls in Northern Ireland. In that principle was the recognition that for great constitutional change one had to ask the people and that, as it was a continuing question, it should be repeated each time. We are long overdue in putting another question to the electors of Northern Ireland, but the principle has fed through Conservative politics all the years of this century.
    The only example I can find of a Prime Minister who has not served in a Cabinet that has recommended a referendum or has not recommended a referendum himself is the present Prime Minister. All other leaders of our party in this century have either served in Cabinets that recommended a referendum at some time or have themselves recommended it.
    Mr. Hurd: Is not my hon. Friend being a little economic with history? He might not recall—but my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) will—that the principle was last discusssed in the House in relation to Europe in 1975, before my hon. Friend's recent Bill. These arguments were deployed at a time, I would argue, when the case for a referendum was strongest because it was then, or a couple of years before, that the

    389
    House had accepted the principle of Community law, the relationship between the House and the institutions of the Community and the jurisdiction of the European Court. The things about which my hon. Friend is most disturbed were accepted then.
    Two or three years later, the question arose whether there should be a referendum. The Conservative party, in opposition, had to make up its mind. On that occasion, the speech of the Leader of the Opposition—aroness Thatcher—ealt with the questions of principle but homed in on the conclusion drawn by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) that the old-fashioned verities of which my hon. Friend speaks were reflected in the principle of representative democracy and that we owed our constituents not only our industry but our judgment. That was what we were for. On that basis, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I and many others—elatively new Members —ent into the House behind our leader precisely on that point of principle to vote for representative democracy and against a referendum.
    Mr. Shepherd: That may be so. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will remember that, towards the end of her speech, the then Leader of the Opposition also accepted the principle that there could be referendums at some future stage when profound matters were in question. It is true that at that time the Conservative party voted against the referendum, but there is no great consistency, because in 1972 the party voted for a referendum when in government. I was merely trying to point out that this is not such a vexed question of representative government that we diminish Parliament; I would argue that we reinforce it. I take the Balfour view and that of all our political leaders, even Winston Churchill.
    I see that some of my hon. Friends now cite Attlee's response to Churchill's request for a continuation of the wartime coalition against Japan by the device of a referendum. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary ill perhaps recall—from his reading, as he is too young to recall it in any other way—that Attlee said then that referendums were the devices of dictators and de-magogues. Indeed, one can understand why he might say that, having lived through the Europe of the 1930s, in which the Hitlers, the Mussolinis and the Francos of this world used the referendum as an instrument for just such purposes. I understand the diffidence within the usual and traditional British political culture, and the reasons why one would be wary.
    However, the fundamental question is whether there are any issues that should be returned to the electorate. Dicey would have said, as he ultimately did—
    8 pm
    Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Shepherd: I am trying to talk about some rather important matters, and I want to develop my argument.
    Are there any questions that should be returned to the electorate? I, and many other hon. Members, contend that the Bill is such an issue because the treaty purports to be
    390
    "irrevocable" and "irreversible". Those words are used in the treaty, and that concept goes much against the political culture and tradition that my right hon. Friend identified.
    My right hon. Friend could say that such matters have already been disposed of, but I find it difficult to present to the British nation as a whole the facts that there is a range of laws, that there is an independent central bank elsewhere issuing currency, and that, despite all our experience, there is a drive towards the reinstatement of the exchange rate mechanism in stage 2. It is a moot point. We have legal judgment on my side of the argument; the Government advance their own legal judgment, and the matter will be determined ultimately by the Commission and the European Court.
    Mr. Marlow: Should my hon. Friend's answer to the Foreign Secretary not be as follows? Our right hon. Friend is saying that we are a representative democracy. We are a representative democracy—just. But if the Bill goes through we shall not be one, so we want a referendum before we cease to be a representative democracy.
    Mr. Shepherd: Of course I agree with that; otherwise I should not be proposing a referendum.
    Mr. Gorst: Does my hon. Friend not recognise that, certainly in recent years, referendums have been called in aid when Governments have been in difficulties, and have been requested when those who are calling for them are losing the argument?
    Mr. Shepherd: That observation is often made, and there is some truth in it. We know full well that the referendum of the mid-1970s, which I thought wholly right and appropriate, came about because of the difficulties within the party then in government. However, the motive by which one arrives at a conclusion does not mean that the conclusion itself is wrong. The Government were wholly right to hold a referendum because they had to invite the British public—
    Mr. Alex Salmond: May I comment on what was said by the hon. Member for Hendon, -North (Mr. Gorst)? He cannot possibly be correct, because the case for the referendum will be made this evening both by people who are against Maastricht, such as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), and by people who are for Maastricht, such as myself. We cannot both be losing the argument.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Although masses of things can be done within a parliamentary democracy, is not the principle that there is one thing that a parliamentary democracy cannot do, and that is to give up its operation of parliamentary democracy? If that is to be done, some other method must be used to ratify the decision. Normally, such decisions could do no more than pass things over to another parliamentary democracy, but that is not happening with Maastricht, because things are being passed over to a bureaucracy. Nevertheless, the reason for a referendum is based on the principles of representative government and parliamentary democracy.
    Mr. Shepherd: I absolutely agree. The difficulty for our argument has been that the people outside did not have the benefit of reading the treaty. We must remember that it was not published until a week before Second Reading, so all the new hon. Members who entered the House did not have the opportunity to reflect on the contentions of the

    391
    treaty during the general election. If their electorate had asked them what it was about, they would have been unable to say.
    Mr. Budgen: I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with what the Foreign Secretary said about Burke's great speech setting out our duties. When Burke made that speech, it was true that a Member of Parliament often had a difficult time with his patron, but not necessarily with his party. Now we have the tyranny of the party, which has prevented Members of Parliament from expressing their views on the treaty freely. There can be little doubt that there would not be a free majority for the Maastricht treaty on the Government side if it were not for the operation of the party machine.
    Mr. Shepherd: I accept the argument, but I notice that the House has provided a wonderful forum for my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West to express his views courageously and clearly. What he has said today gives a cheer for our democracy, but to speak in that way requires more courage than it did in the past, when the sentiment of the people was so clearly that they expected their Member of Parliament to be able to express freely, courageously, loudly and boldly his views on matters that affected their lives and well-being. I also reflect that Burke lost the election after having written that letter. I believe that if any of us sent such a letter to our constituents today he would probably lose the election, too.
    Mr. Peter Luff: I respect the integrity and sincerity of my hon. Friend's belief that the issue before us is the single most important issue facing the country. and therefore deserves a referendum. However, in my constituency a referendum is already being conducted. There are six questions, not one, on the ballot paper. The first is indeed about Maastricht; another is about the principle of a referendum; another is about a freedom of information Bill. There is also a question about the use of urban rather than rural land for development, and the last two are about live animal transport and hunting with hounds. I have to tell my hon. Friend that the person organising the referendum believes that the last of those six questions is the single most important issue confronting the people of this country, and that is why the referendum is being organised. Does my hon. Friend not accept that he is letting a dangerous genie out of the bottle by proposing a referendum?
    Mr. Shepherd: Clearly my hon. Friend must pursue his own arguments with his own electorate, but I find it deeply disturbing if someone says that the power of the vote is something trivial, and that its passing away is of no consequence. The heart of the matter is that we are trying to take away irrevocably and irreversibly the traditional strengths that our democratic constitution has had.
    In terms of exposition, a referendum is one of the best ways of informing an electorate about the issues in contention. I have always argued that on the most profound political questions—that is, constitutional questions—I believe, as A. J. Balfour did, that the device of the referendum should be available to our people. It would take the party struggle out of the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) could then truthfully pursue his argument and I could pursue mine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton,
    392
    South-West has said, there would be no fear of the Whips. This is a matter for the people out there. They would be asked, "Do you or do you not want the constitutional arrangements that follow from Maastricht?"
    The people know that there is something corrupt in all this. It cannot be right that their rights are being taken away without a reference back to them. Certainly it is wrong for that to happen without its having been a major issue in an election. We used to have the principle of what was called the specific mandate. From time to time during our history, there has been an election in which there has been such fury over a single issue that no one has had any doubt about the will of the people as expressed in the outcome. That has not happened in recent years, and certainly no one could call 1992 an election with a specific mandate on the concept of Maastricht. Yet the Front-Bench Members, on both sides of the House implicitly accept that the 1992 election conferred the right to change the constitution so profoundly. I hope that the Labour party will see that there is an advantage in returning the question to the country.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: It increasingly appears that the difference between us is an assessment of how best to look after the interests of our constituents, given that the decision to enter the Community, with all the institutional implications, was made back in the 1970s. The effect of the Maastricht treaty is to redefine some of the commitments that we as a country made a considerable time ago, when we accepted that, because sovereignty was not like virginity, which one either has or does not have, but was a multi-layered concept, looking after the interests of our constituents often meant that we as Members of Parliament could have more influence by working together within the Community institutions, by looking after the Executive in this place, which represented us in those institutions, and by occasionally working with the European Parliament, rather than by attempting to ignore everything else and saying that only what happened in this place could protect the interests of our constituents.
    In my view, Maastricht does not mark a fundamental departure. It marks a continuation of what we set out to do. Indeed, it provides various means of strengthening the process.
    Mr. Shepherd: That is the conveyor-belt argument and I look forward to challenging my hon. Friend in the referendum campaigns around the country. We should trust the people. Let them decide the difference between the two arguments. At the end of the day, that is all I am saying. We are talking about powers that we are moving. They are not my powers or the powers of the House. This House is the symbol of the sovereignty of the people.
    Because of the constitutional concepts, the idea of the sovereignty of Parliament has been able to embrace monarchical government, oligarchical government and very limited government, but in the age of democratic government we try to use our Parliament as the instrument to safeguard that democratic quality. It has been the instrument by which we have overcome monarchical, oligarchical and other forms of government.
    Many hon. Members will claim that we did not have democracy in Britain until we had the enfranchisement of women and, therefore, we did not have true parliamentary democracy until the late 1920s. However, we are now suggesting that those who have the vote and who send us

    393
    here will be diminished by this measure. Of itself, that is enough to send it back and have a referendum. We should trust the people.
    Dr. John Cunningham: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak so early in the debate. At the outset, I must state that I do not support the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). As I listened to his entertaining and passionate speech, I felt that I had been there before and that I had heard those arguments when our country was taken into the European Community in 1972. We were told then that that would be the end of parliamentary democracy and that the position and authority of the House, and of hon. Members in it, would be completely and irrevocably undermined. We were told that those irrevocable steps, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills described them, would diminish our ability to represent our constituents and the country effectively.
    Mr. William Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Cunningham: Not just at the moment.
    I have always believed that nothing is irrevocable in a democracy. The nature and purpose of democracy is to facilitate and allow change if the Government of the day win a mandate for change. I do not accept that decisions taken in any democratic country can be categorised as irrevocable.
    If the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills thinks about it for a moment, he might realise that what might be irrevocable are circumstances in which we increasingly abdicate the responsibilities of this House by taking more and more decisions by plebiscite. In the long term, that would be the biggest single threat to the authority of Parliament and it would undermine parliamentary democracy in the way that we have always had it. I believe that the argument is the reverse of the way in which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills presented it to the Committee this evening.
    Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way now?
    Dr. Cunningham: No, not just at the moment. I have literally just begun my speech and I do not wish to speak at great length because the situation is quite simple.
    During our membership of the Community, which was not originally the subject of a referendum—although as the Foreign Secretary quite candidly said, when we had a referendum it was opposed by the Conservative party in opposition—it has been argued that a referendum would resolve the question once and for all. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills quite rightly said, there have been other referendums to settle the question. However, there is no evidence to support that conclusion.
    The question of British membership of the Community was not settled by the referendum and the campaign against membership of the Community continues today. We have witnessed a manifestation of that, at least in part, in the nature of our debates and discussions in the Chamber over the past few weeks.
    Mr. Cash: The right hon. Gentleman questioned whether an irrevocable change was taking place. Only a few days ago, the right hon. Gentleman voted against amendment No. 225 which related to the
    "Protocol on the transition to the Third Stage of Economic and Monetary Union"
    which dealt with the central bank. According to the protocol—and the right hon. Gentleman has voted to sustain this position—
    "The high contracting parties,"—
    including the United Kingdom and its Government whom the right hon. Gentleman is supporting—
    "Declare the irreversible character of the Community's movement to the third stage … and … no Member State shall prevent the entering into the third stage"—
    and the third stage must start and continue—
    "irrevocably on 1 January 1999."
    The right hon. Gentleman has just contradicted what he voted for in respect of amendment No. 225.
    8.15 pm
    Dr. Cunningham: Before we reach that point, there will be another vote in the House of Commons to determine that issue. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, and reinforced by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), that that irrevocable decision is being taken now is not borne out by the facts.
    My point is that, in my experience, whenever referendums are held, for example, in Northern Ireland, in respect of devolution in Scotland and on membership of the Community, they have never finally decided the issue. Shortly after the outcome of those referendums, the campaigns have continued as before. There is no way of preventing that in a democracy.
    If I am fortunate enough to be addressing the House from the Opposition Front Bench in a few years time—or perhaps more fortunate to be addressing the House from the Government Front Bench—I believe that we will still be having these arguments in the House and in the country as a whole. I cannot accept the argument that a referendum will finally allow the people to decide the issue.
    Mr. Michael Lord: A few moments ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that the fears of people in 1975, about what would happen as a result of our entering the Common Market, have not been realised. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman represents an agricultural constituency, as I do. He must be aware of the agricultural problems that I have to solve and he will be aware just how impotent my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is to solve the problems that I, as a Back Bencher, take to him.
    Europe has intervened more in our national affairs in respect of agriculture than anywhere else and, as an agriculture Member, I can no longer represent my constituents as I should. With regard to agriculture, the fears expressed in 1975 were entirely justified.
    Dr. Cunningham: I do not accept that argument. That is an argument for not being part of the CAP and for not being part of the Community. That makes my point that the argument about membership of the Community was not finally resolved by the referendum in 1975. There will always be people in Britain, be they farmers or industrialists—
    Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
    Dr. Cunningham: I will not give way at the moment. I must be allowed to deal with one intervention before I give way to another.
    As the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) said, there are many farmers in my constituency in perhaps 350 square miles of west and south Cumbria. Some of them support our membership of the Community, some are exasperated by it and some are implacably opposed to it. However, the idea that there is a uniform view about the benefits or disadvantages of membership of the Community for the people in the various agricultural industries does not hold water.
    Over the past 20 years, some aspects of agriculture have benefited enormously from aspects of the CAP—perhaps more so than many of us would have wished. However, to suggest that it has all been negative and downhill for British agriculture since we have been in the Community—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way now?
    Dr. Cunningham: Very well, let us get it over with now.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree—[Interruption.] He is on this point. I used to represent his area. It was never easy work going to the Minister of Agriculture because one had to go through an iron-fisted Chancellor. It is a jolly sight easier in many ways to argue in Brussels than to argue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Dr. Cunningham: I cannot resist the temptation of saying that perhaps an iron-fisted Chancellor would be better than the clay-footed one we have at present. I substantially agree with the hon. Lady's point. She is a constituency neighbour of mine and used to represent my constituents in the European Parliament.
    Another aspect of the intervention on agriculture bears some scrutiny. The implication was that, if we had not been in the European Community and had not been subject to some of the—I am prepared to concede—vicissitudes of the common agricultural policy, everything in the garden, perhaps I should say pastures, would have been wonderful for our farmers. I cannot accept that as a legitimate conclusion.
    I am not convinced that we should have a referendum because it would finally and irrevocably settle the issue.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Dr. Cunningham: No, I shall make a little progress. I am a little confused as to why so many Conservative Members did not raise all these issues when the Single European Bill was before the House. Not only did that Act make some important and far-reaching changes to our circumstances, but Conservative Members who were in the House at the time voted to have it guillotined. To contrast the lime allocated for discussion on and deliberation of the intricate details of the Maastricht treaty with the performance of the Conservative party and the Government at that time is instructive because Conservative Members voted not only to have the Single European Act—
    Mr. John Townend: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Cunningham: No, I have not yet finished making my point so it is a little unreasonable to ask me to give way on it.
    Conservative Members voted to curtail discussion on the Single European Bill. At that time, there were no great campaigns or claims that we were giving away irrevocably the powers of this Parliament, undermining parliamentary democracy as we have always known it or betraying the wishes of the British people. The attitude was that it was hell for leather—let us get it through. That is in stark contrast to the views now being expressed at least by some Conservative Members.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Several Conservative Members in the House at present did not vote for the Single European Act. I continue to be worried about the right hon. Gentleman's use of the word "irrevocable". He said earlier that nothing was irrevocable. Is not that the crux of this debate? In reality, if we give away our sovereignty and effectively put into British law something whereby we are not controlled by the British Parliament but by 11 other countries—and who knows how many other countries there will be as more join the Community —that is irrevocable, even if all the countries agree to change the law. Is not that the crux of the argument? The magnitude of the problem and the magnitude of the subject mean that we are entitled to say that this is a subject on which the British people should have a say.
    Dr. Cunningham: I am for the British people having a say in general elections—in assessing how I represent them and how I perform with regard to the interests of the people in my constituency. They have the opportunity to decide whether they want me to continue to represent them. I do not accept that people do not have a say.
    At the general election, the Labour party made it clear that it strongly supports membership of the European Community. We made no secret of that. I am prepared to accept that those issues were not pre-eminent in the election campaign in which we all participated last year. Nevertheless, it is wrong to say that people, either as individual candidates or as political parties, did not have an opportunity to raise the issues or question them.
    Mr. John Townend: At the general election, what opportunity was there for the members of the electorate who opposed Maastricht when all the major parties were for Maastricht? They had no choice whatever, and that is the main argument for a referendum.
    Dr. Cunningham: I do not accept that. The majority of voters drew a conclusion from the fact that all political parties came to the judgment that the best interests of our country lay in being a full-hearted member of the European Community.
    Mr. Townend: They had no choice.
    Dr. Cunningham: It was the collective view: the hon. Gentleman is right. I think that it was the unanimous view of the political parties. It was also the right view.
    Mr. Tony Benn: I am listening with great attention. First, my right hon. Friend knows that the Maastricht treaty was negotiated after the 1991 Labour party conference. Therefore, there was no party commitment whatever to Maastricht during our conference. Secondly, the treaty had not been published in English at the time of the general election and, therefore,

    397
    people not only did not know what it was but were told that—[Interruption.] Of course, they did not know the details. It has taken hours of debate in Committee to bring out the details. The Labour party national executive and the shadow Cabinet came out for the treaty without having any authority from the party conference.
    Dr. Cunningham: At least some of that intervention is true: it is a matter of record. If my right hon. Friend's argument is that I have no authority to stand here on behalf of the Labour party and advance these views, he is wrong. In 1992 at the Labour party conference, an overwhelming majority of the national executive committee and the shadow Cabinet voted in favour of the Maastricht process, as did the Trades Union Congress and most of the constituent members of the trade unions. Therefore, I cannot accept that there has been no consultation, deliberation or debate about our view on the merits or otherwise of the Maastricht treaty?
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: There was no consultation.
    Dr. Cunningham: I do not accept that: there was widespread consultation within our party and with people in our constituencies—and it has continued ever since.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that, consistently in the past 18 months, public opinion polls and surveys have shown that an overwhelming majority of British people—Conservative voters, Labour voters and others—wished to have a referendum on the Maastricht treaty? The poll that took place in February 1993 showed that 73 per cent. of the people in the United Kingdom wished to have a referendum on the Maastricht treaty and the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
    Dr. Cunningham: I am aware of how public opinion stands and how it fluctuates. In the past, I dare say that there have been occasions when the hon. Gentleman—I do not want to misrepresent his views—has campaigned for matters such as capital punishment on the basis of public opinion. If we had simply taken public opinion as our guiding light, rather than our judgment in such matters, and if capital punishment had been reintroduced—
    Several hon. Members rose—
    The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.
    Dr. Cunningham: If we took note of public opinion at a specific time, all sorts of arguments would be adduced in favour of referendums. I return to my point about the speech by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills.
    8.30 pm
    Then we would have referendums on the basis of snapshots of public opinion. If we had acceded to that request, a whole lot of people who have subsequently been found to be wrongly convicted might have been executed as a result of simply giving in to public opinion without further and proper consideration of the issues. So I am not persuaded by that argument.
    Mr. David Winnick: My right hon. Friend is correct to say that if capital punishment had existed in Britain people who have been found innocent would already have been executed.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Lots of people would not have been murdered.
    Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Lady contain herself?
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a great distinction to be made between matters, however controversial, which Parliament should decide—whether capital punishment or any other issue—allowing the electorate to decide in the general election whether in its judgment we were right or wrong, and great constitutional issues such as that which we are debating today? Surely the British people should have some say about whether further economic and political power should be transferred from Britain to the European Community. On that issue alone many Opposition Members believe that a referendum would be justified.
    Dr. Cunningham: I know my hon. Friend's view. I have just set out my reasons for not accepting his argument. I see no force in what he says to persuade me that the British people have not had the opportunity—
    Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Cunningham: I am being fairly generous in taking interventions. I am just beginning to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and I have been asked to give way again. Regretfully, I have to say, "Sorry, not for the moment." In response to my hon. Friend—I had better address the Committee, but I feel uncomfortable speaking to him with my back to him—I would say that one thing is absolutely sure: a referendum approved by the House, containing a question tabled by a Conservative Government, would not provide the British people with one of the options that we want them to have. We want them to have the opportunity to vote on whether we should adopt the social chapter.
    Furthermore, the best hope that we have of achieving agreement that the social chapter should apply in our country is not to have a referendum but to win a vote, hopefully during the Report stage of these proceedings. That is the best option for achieving the most important political objective that our party has set itself in the debate in the Committee.
    Mr. Salmond: If that is the right hon. Gentleman's major difficulty, perhaps he will support our amendment to one of the new clauses on the amendment paper this evening. To reach that new clause we must first pass new clause 49 in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). Is he aware that today the Scottish Trades Union Congress overwhelmingly voted in favour of a referendum on the Maastricht treaty? Does not that show that there has been some change of mind since the conferences last year on which the right hon. Gentleman put so much emphasis?
    Dr. Cunningham: I shall deal first with the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I do not know whether it will be put to a Division, but it seems to me that he is offering me something of a false prospectus. He is saying that if only

    399
    we agree to supporrt the argument for a general referendum, there is a hope—but no certainty—that his amendment will have the support of the same majority. I do not believe that many Conservative Members—I do not wish to malign them—who are strongly in favour of a referendum on whether we should endorse the Maastricht treaty will vote for the inclusion of a question about the social chapter. They see the social chapter as one of the greatest single threats from the European Community to what they regard as the future well-being of Britain.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Cunningham: No, I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot accommodate all the interventions if I give way to the same hon. Gentleman twice in a couple of minutes. He is offering me a false prospectus and I do not have too much difficulty in rejecting it.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Cunningham: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). Then I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: The only hopeful thing that has happened in a miserable day is the statement by the right hon. Gentleman that nothing is irrevocable. Will he take some time to explain how the House of Commons could legally turn anything back once the Maastricht treaty was ratified? If he could explain that, it would be one of the most hopeful things to have happened today. Our interpretation is that there is no lawful way in which the Houses of Parliament could go backwards once Maastricht was through.
    Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman has to convince the British people to elect a Government who would repeal or withdraw—[Interruption.] It is not inconceivable, at least in theory, that a Government could be elected who had come to the conclusion that Britain's membership of the Community was no longer in the best interests of the country. That is why I say that in a democracy, by definition, things can be changed as a result of a change in Government.[Interruption.] No Parliament can irrevocably bind its successor. [HON MEMBERS: "Yes, it can."]
    Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Cunningham: No. I said that I would give way for the last time to the hon. Member for Southend, East, and then draw my remarks to a conclusion. I must then keep a much delayed engagement before returning to the Committee later in the debate.
    Mr. Duncan-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Cunningham: No. I cannot speak for the Conservative party.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Or for the Labour party.
    Dr. Cunningham: I am speaking about decisions taken by the Labour party, about which my hon. Friend apparently feels cavalier. Those decisions were taken overwhelmingly by the national executive committee. The
    400
    shadow Cabinet and the party conference. That is the position on which I base my remarks to the Committee today. They were properly and constitutionally taken decisions of the party. I do not know how my hon. Friend can say from a sedentary position that I do not speak on behalf of the Labour party. Those decisions are clear and on the record. There is no point in disputing them.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: My right hon. Friend is telling us that the abandonment of powers under the treaty is not irrevocable. He says that another Parliament or Government could take them back. Under the treaty, especially after we have gone into monetary union—it may be a separate decision, but it is a binding one—we shall give over control of interest rates, our central bank, any European central bank, and our exchange rates, levels of borrowing and money supply. What can we take back out of that lot?
    Dr. Cunningham: We have had those debates and discussions in the Chamber in the past few weeks. They have been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and others at some length. I simply do not accept my hon. Friend's long list of assertions.
    I have the feeling that this is a debate and vote which we might describe as a Group 4 Security vote. It is a "go as you please" vote. Regardless of the decisions of the party, many of my hon. Friends intend to make up their own mind how to vote. That is a matter for them. But speaking on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Cabinet, and in support of the decisions of our party, let me say that we shall vote against the new clause in the Lobby tonight.
    Sir Roger Moate: It is a bit rich for the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to refer to the way in which my hon. Friends changed their position on the Single European Act. We fully understand that the right hon. Gentleman has to leave but he should understand that the Labour party and its Front-Bench team have turned so many somersaults on the European issue and now they proclaim—to my deep regret—that they are convinced and passionate Europeans. They have opposed virtually every piece of European legislation for the past 25 years.
    For the right hon. Member for Copeland, who has just left the Chamber, to attack the principle of a referendum when he voted for one in 1975 is extraordinary. I wish that he had stayed in the Chamber long enough to explain how he could argue so passionately against it today when he voted in favour of it in 1975. He was then a young Member, and no doubt ambitious—it did not get him far, as he is still in opposition. Doubtless the same can be asked of other Members in the Labour Front-Bench team—why are they against a referendum today, when they were for it in 1975? The deputy leader of the Labour party, no less, was the Whip on that occasion, rightly voting in support of a referendum to allow the British people a say.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I voted against membership of the Common Market in 1975, and times have moved on considerably since then. However, the question then being asked was different. The European Single Act, which was pushed through the House on a

    401
    guillotine, gave away some of the powers that Conservative Members are now complaining about. They did nothing about it then.
    Mr. Duncan-Smith rose—
    Sir Roger Moate: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith).
    Mr. Duncan-Smith: The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who has just left the Chamber, made an intriguing statement, which lies at the core of the issue. He said that nothing was irrevocable. There is a good example of why that statement is wrong and why the whole argument about how irrevocable the treaty is, as it binds one Parliament to another. In 1977, under the then Labour Administration, the acquired rights directive, now referred to as the transfer of undertakings, was initiated. Since then, we have had Conservative Administrations, and during that time there have been rulings in the European Court of Justice that have gradually changed the meaning of that directive, so that the present Government have had to introduce legislation to change the directive as it affected our right to decide whether or not certain local councils should have to take on the rights of employees. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
    Sir Roger Moate: My hon. Friend has given a good illustration of creeping irrevocability. We are not necessarily talking about whether something is irrevocable or not, but whether it is intended that it should be for ever. When the original treaty of Rome was signed and when the Maastricht treaty is signed—and those who subscribe to it say that we should move to common defence and foreign policies—the clear, honest and open intention will be to transfer power to another forum on a permanent basis.
    The proposition is simple—if Parliament is contemplating such a move, in the unique circumstances of a transfer of power with the intention that it should be irrevocable, Parliament should ask the permission of those that elected its Members. We talk about a sovereign Parliament, but really we mean the sovereignty of the people in Parliament. We in this Parliament have no rights to transfer or to intend to transfer irrevocably those powers to another organisation without gaining the electorate's authority. That is a simple concept, which seems to be gaining acceptance if one considers the precedents to which I shall refer later.
    I must tell the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) that it was that motivation that lay behind the Labour Government's introduction of a referendum in 1975. The principle was right then, and I believe that there are overwhelming arguments for it to be adopted again. There is a stronger argument for the Labour party to advocate a referendum than the Conservative party. The Labour party's official position goes far beyond that adopted by the Government. The Labour party advocates the acceptance of a single currency—the ultimate expression of the ambitions of a single state. If that is not an issue that should be put to the British people, I do not know what is.
    402
    8.45 pm
    I am extremely disappointed that the Government are against a referendum, but it is not surprising, because Governments are seldom in the business of erecting obstacles to their own plans and legislation. It is not surprising that they should reject the idea of volunteering a referendum. President de Gaulle did so and we saw the consequences for him; President Mitterrand did so and he nearly came a cropper. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Government have not voluntarily erected that obstacle.
    But whatever the Labour party's views on the issue, I strongly argue that it is the Labour party that is betraying the British people by not sticking to the principle that it espoused in 1975. I shall return to that issue, as it involves a fundamental duty of the Opposition. If the Labour party were espousing the referendum today—which I believe the British people want and demand—there would be an overwhelming coalition for it in the House. It is very much the failure of the Labour party's Front Bench team to endorse a referendum that is depriving the British people of their right to vote on the issue, which is a matter of regret to me.
    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary advanced an argument in an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills quoted precedents. As on other occasions, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary challenged a referendum as the right constitutional formula. He said that it was not Conservative, and it undermined parliamentary sovereignty.
    However, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not challenge the precedent quoted by my hon. Friend, which is of the utmost importance—perhaps he will do so later. That precedent was the introduction of the Northern Ireland border poll by a Conservative Government in the 1970s. That was a firm, cast-iron precedent—it was a referendum introduced by a Conservative Government on a matter involving the future powers and sovereignty of a part of the United Kingdom. However, it was not simply introduced into our constitution; it has become as entrenched a part of our constitution as anything can be.
    Every time a Cabinet Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and says that Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland decide otherwise, he reaffirms his belief in the principle of a referendum and in the fact that the people of Northern Ireland, whenever it is necessary and required, will have the right to determine their future. I urge my right hon. Friends, whatever their dislike of referendums and whatever their tactical objections, to reconsider the principles that they say underline their case.
    Mr. Winnick: Surely the position is unlike that in 1975, when most of the press—the tabloids and the serious press —were in favour of a yes vote, and the Government and the Conservative Opposition and the Liberal party were all urging the electorate to vote yes. Now, is it not true that the two Front-Bench teams do not want a referendum because they cannot assume that they would win? If they thought otherwise and believed that victory was possible, they might be in favour of it. I do not underestimate the position, but the circumstances are different from those in

    403
    1975 and I believe that the Front-Bench teams do not want to put the issue to the British people as they fear losing a referendum on it.
    Sir Roger Moate: One can advance any motivations. I do not necessarily believe that that is the Government's motivation. Having met enough obstacles to halt the ratification of the treaty, even if they felt inclined to hold a referendum—which they clearly do not—the Government would probably view a referendum as providing more evidence to our European partners of our weakening resolve, and would pose another obstacle to and damage the British position.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Did my hon. Friend not notice a common thread running through the argument about a referendum? It is all right to let the people of Northern Ireland have a referendum as they are the Northern Irish, it is all right to let the Scots have a referendum as they are the Scots, but it is not right for the United Kingdom to have a referendum. It is interesting that the Labour party is currently calling for a referendum on constitutional matters affecting Scotland, yet the Bill goes right to the heart of the constitutional rights of the Scottish people as achieved in the 1706 Act of Scottish Parliament which became the 1707 Treaty of Union.
    Sir Roger Moate: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a matter of regret that we are arguing with our own Front Bench and with the Conservative party position. There is a great deal to be gained in our constitutional arrangements by accepting the principle of the referendum on great constitutional issues. It is a matter of regret, because we have begun to accept it in practice, yet we argue against it in principle.
    We have had referendums in Scotland, in Wales, in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom. That is quite a lot of referendums in a short space of history, yet here we are arguing against the referendum as though it were an alien device that we must resist. It is a simple proposition—this answers an earlier intervention about animal rights.
    We are talking about great constitutional issues, and. as we do not have a written constitution and a supreme court to refer to, the only ultimate authority that Parliament can have is the people. It is a simple proposition, and we should accept it.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government understood the gravity and the importance of the subject by granting a paving debate, in the Prime Minister's words, so that the House could express an opinion? It was granted in the summer, but when the debate took place in November, there was heavy whipping —my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-west (Mr. Budgen) was talking about the pressures of it—and the Conservative party made it almost a personal vote of confidence in the Prime Minister. There were all sorts of shenanigans, and there was no way that it was an opportunity for free expression, certainly not among Conservative Members and possibly not among Opposition Members either.
    Had that debate been a genuine paving debate, and had hon. Members on both sides of the House been allowed to express the opinions of their constituents and themselves without party whipping, we may not have been in the position we are in today.
    Sir Roger Moate: I do not agree with my hon. Friend, because many people feel strongly enough about issues of such profound importance not to accept the ruthless whipping that he described. Nor do I accept that the vote to which he referred had much to do with the Maastricht treaty. It had very little to do with the Maastricht treaty. Ultimately, we are talking not about the whipping system but about the principle of a referendum.
    Let me return to the precedents. We have the precedents of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, and we have the 1975 European Community referendum. However, there are other precedents which I would ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to consider, because he and others say constantly that the referendum undermines the principle of parliamentary sovereignity. If that is so, is he saying that the Northern Ireland referendum, the border poll and its permanency in our present constitutional arrangements undermine the authority of this Parliament? If he is not, I hope that he will change his position. Is he saying that other Conservative Prime Ministers in the past who have advocated referendums were also undermining that great Conservative principle?
    Sir Philip Goodhart, in his book on referendums, quoted five out of nine Conservative Prime Ministers who had advocated the use of the referendum. It is six out of 10 now that Lady Thatcher has become a staunch advocate of the referendum, so we are doing quite well. Is my right hon. Friend saying that, when Mr. Churchill advocated a referendum for the extension of Parliament or union with France, he was undermining parliamentary democracy? Is he saying that Mr. Balfour and Bonar Law were undermining parliamentary democracy by supporting the use of a referendum?
    My right hon. Friend is not arrogant, but it would be arrogant to assume that somehow, in the 1990s, we have become the great defenders of parliamentary democracy and sovereignty against such a distinguished list of Conservative Prime Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) who introduced such a measure into our constitution in the 1970s.
    If the answer is that the referendum has now become an acceptable constitutional arrangement, then there is an overwhelming case now for a vote on a referendum on the Maastricht treaty.
    My last point is fundamental. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his first intervention that there was an argument for a referendum in 1975 on the treaty of Rome, as that was when the major decision was taken; but we are now talking about what is in effect a refinement, and I believe that this is the time for such a vote. To pretend that it is a refinement is putting quite a gloss on it.
    I accept that, from the perspective of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, the Maastricht treaty might be a refinement; it might be a step away from European union. That is one interpretation, but it is certainly not the interpretation of the Labour party. If, through some mischance—these things do happen—the Opposition were suddenly to be in Whitehall and Downing street, they would be strong advocates of a single currency and would take measures to move towards it, and they would use the Maastricht treaty as a platform.
    Whatever our agenda is, and it is a good agenda, none the less the European Commission, Mr. Delors and Mr. Mitterrand have their own agenda. When the Maastricht treaty is ratified, they have every ambition to go on to

    405
    economic union and the single defence policy. All those things are possible, and we cannot know which will happen.
    We do not know whether the Maastricht treaty means a great deal or very little. Many of my hon. Friends are trooping through the Lobby saying, "Why are you worried? It's a dead duck." One of my hon. Friends said to me, "I am voting holding my nose, believing that it will not happen," and he might be right.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Sir Roger Moate: When I have finished this point.
    Many European leaders believe Maastricht to be the launching pad for the next stage of European union, leading ultimately to federalism. That is their ambition. The fact that we do not know, it could go one way or the other, does not mean that the British people should not have the right to choose—because one thing is certain: in years to come, if we move in the direction that many of us, and the Government, are resisting, we will be told that we voted for the Maastricht treaty, so we must accept the consequences.
    How many people here in the past few months have been asked why, if they do not believe in this treaty, they voted for the Single European Act? They may have been dragooned through the Lobby or persuaded by arguments of party loyalty—quite proper arguments, incidentally—but then their votes have been thrown back at them, just as such arguments would be thrown back at us.
    Mr. Jenkin: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that our own Government have given no assurances that they will not seek to move to the third stage of monetary union or, in the shorter term, to re-enter the exchange rate mechanism? Their agenda is therefore open to question.
    9 pm
    Sir Roger Moate: I do not question the Government's agenda on this issue. My hon. Friends will not agree with me, but I believe that the direction set out by the Prime Minister offers us more than any other—certainly more than would be offered by the Labour party Front-Bench spokesmen, with their wholehearted commitment to European union, and more than most of our European partners would offer. Excluding the single currency or opting out of the commitment excluding the social chapter, and being determined to expand and enlarge the Community—all these moves offer a proper way forward. We do not know, however, whether the Government will have the power, faced with a great number of other forces, to deliver these objectives. I do know that the Maastricht treaty, good, bad, or indifferent, is a major treaty and is perceived as such by the people of this country.
    The intention behind the treaty is expressed in its terrifying preamble, which sets out the ambitions of the federalists. Those ambitions have been nurtured for 30 years; they will not go away just because of the recession in Europe—they will reassert themselves. That is why we need a referendum. The Labour party could have helped us to deliver one, but it will not. So probably we will not get one, even though I will vote for it. Perhaps the House of Lords will, too.
    406
    If there is an argument for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, there will be an even more powerful argument for a referendum on the single currency, because that would be the ultimate and irrevocable step that would take Britain into a federal united states of Europe. That federalist ambition still exists. I am disappointed that the Government have not perceived that this was an opportunity to get the endorsement of the British people for their decision, one way or the other. That would have been to their credit. It would have helped this Parliament politically, and above all it would have been right.
    Mr. Bryan Gould: I am glad that new clause 49 has been selected for debate and Division. That assures us that the Committee will at least have the opportunity to vote on this important issue—a chance which was in doubt for some time.
    Many of those present have spent long hours in the Committee debating the important issues surrounding the treaty of Maastricht, not just because we wish to inform ourselves of the arguments but because we sought to use the Chamber for its traditional and proper purpose: as a sounding board from which the great issues could be taken out of public debate in the country at large.
    Notwithstanding the efforts we have made and the hours we have spent, however, we have been at best only partly successful. I believe that the British people are still only dimly aware of some of the issues that we in the Committee have rightly concluded are of great importance.
    That partial failure has not come about by accident. It has arisen because some of our leading politicians have tried to ensure that the issues are not publicly debated. They tried to ensure that at the time of the general election. They have now tried to ensure it, with the aid of other parties, by holding debates such as this important one very late at night. They have then tried to be satisfied, unfortunately with the co-operation of many members of the press, that those journalists will have gone home by the time many of the important issues are debated.
    These leading politicians have peddled the idea—we heard the Foreign Secretary at it again today—that nothing of great importance is happening, that these are minor incremental changes that follow on inexorably from what has been decided. No one, they say, should get worked up about them. Behind it all there is the constant refrain, the constant briefing of the press, the constant undermining of those who believe these issues to be important, to the effect that these are arcane issues of interest only to obsessives and fanatics. We are given to understand—how often we have heard this point made —that these matters are taking up time that would be better spent on more important subjects. That is the context in which we as Members of Parliament have tried to deal with these important issues.
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman, in his reasonable tone of voice, is talking nonsense. These are crucially important issues and they are being discussed where they ought to be discussed. At the general election, I tried over and over again, as perhaps other right hon. and hon. Members did, too, to talk about these things. I did talk about them, but they were not considered of great moment by the press, presumably because there was no great battle between the parties. But the effort was made, certainly by me and by the Prime Minister, to bring these matters to the fore.

    407
    We come to the debate. It is bizarre of the hon. Gentleman to say that we are holding the debate out of prime time because of some conspiracy by the Government. The authors of that discomfiture are much closer to the hon. Gentleman than I am. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and his hon. Friends are largely responsible for that accident, if it is an accident. It has nothing to do with us.
    I have taken part in only one or two of the debates on the Bill, but I have read the others. The quality of debate has been much higher than the reports of those debates suggest. The debates on subsidiarity and common foreign and security policy—to name the ones in which I took part —have been of high quality. Parliament has been doing its job. There has been no conspiracy of silence. The press has been more interested in the manoeuvres and comings and goings, but the hon. Gentleman must acquit the Government of any attempt to conceal the issues or deny that they are important. They are very important, and this is the place where they should be decided.
    Mr. Gould: The Foreign Secretary may have spoken in his intervention for longer than I have managed in my speech. I was prepared to let him go on because it was interesting and heartening to have what I took to be his assurance that a vote on this central issue will not be conducted after 10 pm. Notwithstanding the length of his earlier intervention, I invite the Foreign Secretary to rise again to give the assurance that no attempt will be made to move the business motion at 10 o'clock. Will he give us that assurance?
    Mr. Hurd: Certainly not; it does not follow in any way from what I said.
    Mr. Gould: The Foreign Secretary concedes immediately my point that these matters are being debated and decided late at night when virtually no one, with one or two honourable exceptions, is present in the Press Gallery.
    Following the painful admission that we have not succeeded in getting these issues into the public domain, let me say something more hopeful. Despite that, somehow, in a way which should give us confidence in our democracy, the people have got wind of the fact that something is amiss. The Foreign Secretary confirmed again that because there was no battle between the parties —he meant the Front Benches—the issue was not discussed during the election. He conceded as much in his intervention. Despite that, the people know that something is wrong.
    The people have shown that they understand that the treaty of Maastricht is important and that it would be an outrage for a decision to be taken on it without their being asked their opinion. That is the meaning of the opinion polls, the 73 per cent. and the vote by the Scottish TUC today. That is the meaning of every expression of opinion that I have had the privilege of encountering. I speculate whether any hon. Member can point to an expression of opinion which supports the Maastricht treaty and denies the case for a referendum.
    Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Labour Front Bench accuse me of offering a false perspective in the amendment which we have tabled to his new clause 49. With his experience of Parliament, he will know that that is not the case, because the procedure is that if his new clause is carried, the Chairman of Ways and
    408
    Means will decide whether to call the amendment. Whether that amendment is called and regardless of the result, there would be a further vote on the new clause to decide whether to incorporate it in the Bill. Therefore, those of us who believe in the social chapter in no way depend on the good will of people who do not to force it into the referendum amendment. If that is the reasoning of Labour Front-Bench speakers, they are on weak ground.
    Mr. Gould: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is exactly right. If the Committee supports the new clause, I hope that it will support the amendment, because that would meet the stated objectives of my Front-Bench spokesmen.
    Mr. George Galloway: Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of the test of opinion, will he comment on today's extraordinarily important decision by the Scottish TUC in Glasgow? Labour Front-Bench spokesmen made much of the Labour conference decision taken seven months ago or more on an emergency resolution after half an hour's debate and only eight speakers. Not a single constituency Labour party or trade union had discussed the matter before casting their votes. Today in Glasgow the Amalgamated Engineering Union, which is no revolutionary band, the Transport and General Workers Union, the National Union of Public Employees and the National and Local Government Officers Association, and union after union led by their general secretaries, presidents and national executives—because, as my hon. Friend knows, those votes are cast not by some Scottish adjunct of the trade union movement but by the very centre of power in those unions—cast their votes. Does my hon. Friend agree that that marks a seismic shift in the Labour movement's opinion on the subject?
    Mr. Gould: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's powerful point. It simply confirms what many of us have argued on many occasions—that decisions taken even seven, nine or 12 months ago simply cannot be said to hold for ever. That is certainly true of the decisions taken in the Labour movement.
    I invite hon. Members to consider another expression of public opinion. I doubt whether there is a single hon. Member who has not found in his or her mailbag over recent weeks and months a rising tide of concern expressed in letters from constituents. They ask, "What is the Maastricht treaty about? Will it really deny us our democratic rights of self government? Should we not have a referendum?" Those are important expressions of opinion and few hon. Members will have failed to notice that that is what their constituents are saying.
    Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the events of 16 September also completely changed the debate? The ERM was meant to be the necessary preliminary to a single currency. The British people cannot be expected all the time to consider arcane arguments about the difference between fixed and floating exchange rates. However, on a pragmatic basis, they are surely entitled to say, "The Government's whole economic policy burst apart on 16 September. It is based upon our implementing the Maastricht treaty. Are we not entitled to think again?"
    Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman is right. In addition to events on 16 September, there was also the Danish referendum on, I think, 6 June. Many events in the past year or so have demonstrated that the Maastricht treaty is

    409
    a document from another age, that it was drawn up for a quite different Europe and that it was the concept, the brain-child, of an elitist group of politicians who had their own private view of what Europe's future might be and did not bother to ask anybody else whether that view was shared.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from the wonderful initiative by the Scottish TUC and by our constituents, there was a similar wonderful initiative within the Conservative party? Does he know that the national conference of young Conservatives, which was held in Southend-on-Sea, overwhelmingly rejected a motion supporting the Maastricht treaty?
    Mr. Gould: I am glad to have that piece of intelligence as well, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I rate it slightly lower in order of importance than the decision by the Scottish TUC.
    What sort of resistance is put up by those who oppose a referendum to the popular pressure that is now manifesting itself? What arguments are used by these upholders of our constitution and our democracy?
    The first argument, which is hardly to be found on the lips of any true democrat, is that the Maastricht treaty raises issues that are too difficult for the British people to comprehend. That is not only anti-democratic but peculiarly offensive to the British people. What reason is there to suppose that they are any more stupid than the French, the Danes or the Irish?
    9.15 pm
    Then there is the refinement of that argument, which is that the British people do not know enough about the issues, and therefore it would be unfair to hold a referendum. Even some of those who are most concerned about the treaty have written to me to say that they are worried about a referendum because they are not certain that they understand the issues. Whose fault is that but the Government's? They held a general election and pushed through a Second Reading of the Bill without publishing the text of the treaty in English and they have still failed to publish a complete text of what is, in effect, our first major comprehensive written constitution.
    If people are serious about trying to inform the British people about the issues, there is one certain way to guarantee that the issues will be brought out, debated and, at least to a reasonable degree, made familiar to the British people. It is to have a referendum. I have no doubt that, like many others, the Foreign Secretary, anxious as he was during the last general electition to ventilate the issues but failing, as even he would concede, would leap at the chance to express his views about the great advantages of the Maastricht treaty.
    So far, our leading politicians have not been assiduous in taking the argument into the public domain. I read in today's press that the Prime Minister will speak at a series of public meetings on the issue. That will be a welcome first. I hope that those who are keen to develop the arguments—on a soapbox or otherwise—will support the case for a referendum.
    There is then the argument, which is a little more subtle than those arguments that are so offensive to British democracy, and which I have seen expressed in letters to constituents and elsewhere, to the effect that these matters
    410
    can safely be left to Parliament. That means, safely left to a Parliament that has been elected without considering in the process of that election whether the issues were important or should be supported, a Parliament where the Whips dictate the votes of most right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, a Parliament that regularly truncates debates after two or three hours, using closure motions, a Parliament that, with all respect to you, Mr. Morris, fails mysteriously and confusingly to find a way to enable itself to vote on one of the few meaningful issues, a Parliament where the Government have made it clear that, whatever the results of the votes on those important issues, they will ignore them and will go ahead to ratify the treaty whatever the outcome, a Parliament in which the Labour party Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have tacitly agreed to ease the passage of the Bill.
    Mr. George Robertson: No.
    Mr. Gould: Perhaps not tacitly. Perhaps my hon. Friend objects to that word. I thought—I could have sworn—that I had heard in the House, in the Committee and in the parliamentary Labour party repeated statements from the leaders of my party that they would do nothing to frustrate the passage of the Bill. I have not so far used the word conspiracy and I understand why my right hon. and hon. Friends might be sensitive about the use of that term, but if one takes as a reasonable definition of "conspiracy" that it is an agreement that is tacit, perhaps unstated, to act in concert for nefarious purposes, we might be looking at a conspiracy.
    Mr. George Robertson: Perhaps I should not rise so easily to the bait. I have not yet been a member of the national executive of the Labour party and I have not yet been, and may never be, a member of the shadow Cabinet, but my hon. Friend was a member of both those organisations up to the party's annual conference last year. He was there in those ruling bodies of the party as the party's policy on Europe evolved. He therefore had a much more instrumental role than many of us.
    When we made it clear that we were not interested in wrecking the Maastricht treaty because our annual conference had laid down that policy last year, it should be understood that my hon. Friend was at that conference. We decided that we should use parliamentary means to secure the social chapter. In other words, we were intent on using Parliament for its primary purpose of ensuring that the issues were debated properly. Surely that must be a reasonable approach for someone who has occupied high positions in the party over many years. Surely it is reasonable and honourable and not a tacit admission of anything other than that we shall conduct the Labour party in the way in which the party has always been conducted.
    Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend may be unduly sensitive. It seems that his intervention does nothing more than confirm my argument. Indeed, he goes further and rightly says that the position taken by those on the Opposition Front Bench is explicit and not tacit. The two Front Benches, deliberately or consciously, find themselves acting in concert. That is relevant to the argument that it is unnecessary or wrong to have a referendum because Parliament is able to decide the issue. Given that the two

    411
    Front Benches are agreed and will Whip their respective followers, surely Parliament is not free to decide these issues in the way proposed.
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is describing a parliamentary world of which I know nothing. I live in hope of change, but so far the Opposition Front Bench has been unfailingly difficult and obstructive.
    Mr. Gould: I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench have managed to convey that impression. It is remarkable, however, that when there are Divisions that matter, even on Labour amendments, we, the Opposition, fail to embarrass the Government by defeating them and preventing them from ratifying the treaty.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that while there is collective responsibility, in which he played a part, it is honourable that when someone can no longer discharge that corporate responsibility he makes his position clear, as my hon. Friend did at a meeting at Blackpool, when I was sitting next to him?
    The relevant conference resolution did not endorse the Maastricht treaty. It described the terms, probably with accuracy, as the best available. It did not endorse acceptance of them. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench say that they will not support—they had every right to make this judgment—any amendment that would threaten the treaty. Against that background, are not the two Front Benches, despite the impression of the Foreign Secretary, much more at one on the issue than the public might think?
    Mr. Gould: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has the position bang to rights.
    I do not want to offend the Liberals because I gather that they support new clause 49—well, I hope that that is the case. The Liberals, however, also have their disreputable role to play, as do some other minority parties, in frustrating the ability of Parliament to deal properly with the issues that are before us. They, too, do their deals with the Government Front Bench. It is—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] There are denials. I am glad to know that, even if the Government were foolish enough to seek to suspend the 10 o'clock business motion, the Liberals would have nothing to do with that. I am sure that they will stick to their principles of open government and ensure that these important matters are debated before the full gaze of the British people as relayed to them by, now, a virtually empty Press Gallery.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; at least, I should feel grateful, because he deals with Liberal Democrats in a much more measured way than he deals with his own Front Bench.
    I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the cause of parliamentary reform, which my party supports. We want to discuss serious issues at sensible times of day, in a sensible fashion, but current parliamentary procedure does not allow that. Let me add that—as I shall make clear if I am fortunate enough to be called to speak—I shall vote for a referendum. I find no difficulty in trying to aid the Bill's progress so that we can reach a decision about the referendum; I am only sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to persuade his party to back the idea.
    412
    The arithmetic suggests that, if Labour, the Liberal Democrats and certain Conservatives backed it, we would have a referendum.
    Mr. Gould: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, particularly for his support in regard to the referendum. I only hope that he will be able to put into practice his principles on the first point that he made. That test may well come at 10 pm; we shall watch carefully.
    At the heart of the argument of those who oppose a referendum—I mean the serious argument; the rest has been marginal—is the proposition that it would be contrary, damaging and inimical to our constitution. The hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) said enough about the precedents to demonstrate that that is nonsense. Those precedents have been coming thick and fast over recent years: we need only look at the writings of A. V. Dicey, the great apostle or high priest of parliamentary sovereignty. Even he argued in favour of referendums as the appropriate response to particular circumstances.
    What are those circumstances? Is it not an irony that those who pray in aid the constitution are the very people who are most intent on subverting and damaging that constitution? In my view, not only is our constitution entirely compatible with a referendum on this issue; it demands such a referendum. Even the greatest supporter of parliamentary sovereignty—Dicey, perhaps—must concede, as a matter of logic, that however powerful Parliament is, certain rules have priority over those of Parliament.
    Sir Terence Higgins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: I am sorry; I am in the middle of an argument.
    If Parliament did not have such rules, we could not know what Parliament is. Rules about Parliament's composition, identity, functions and procedures must logically have priority; for that reason, they cannot depend on Parliament itself, because Parliament preaches them.
    What, then, is the authority that lies behind those rules? Let me use a term invented by the German jurist Hans Kelsen: in each society, state and political entity there is what he described as a Grundnorm—a basic norm. In any democracy worthy of the name, that basic norm must be the will of the people. It is the will of the people which defines and gives authority to Parliament. Parliament may purport to change the rules that define it—to change its mode of operation, and the processes of government and self-government—but it simply has not the authority to go back and change rules which, as I have said, are logically prior to Parliament. Only the will of the people can make such a fundamental change in the way in which we govern ourselves.
    So far, what I have said is a matter of incontrovertible legal and constitutional theory. The real question that now arises is whether the Maastricht treaty poses an issue of such fundamental importance that to accept the change involved would be to redefine fundamentally both Parliament and the way in which we govern ourselves. The treaty of Maastricht is not, in my view, just an incremental change. It is a fully-fledged statement of a written constitution for a new state. It is not I who say so; it is the drafters of the treaty who proclaim that they hereby establish a European union, of which we are all to be citizens.

    413
    That union, if we examine it, has, as I said in an earlier debate, all the trappings of a state. It has its own head of state, chief executive, legislature, civil service, bank, foreign representation, defined boundaries and territories and its own economic, agricultural, industrial and trade policies. Above all, it has its own constitution and supreme constitutional court, which sees its function as being to interpret, develop and protect that constitution. We delude ourselves if we pretend otherwise. Even the term "federal" is inadequate to describe what is laid down in the treaty of Maastricht. It may be good, or it may be bad, but that is what it is.
    9.30 pm
    Let us take a particular example of a very important power of self-government—the power of a democratic electorate in this country to decide what should or should not be the economic policy applied by the Government of this country. Under the treaty of Maastricht, the most important powers over economic policy are ceded to a central bank which is told, in terms, to take no notice of any other institution, and certainly not of any elected Government. That change, of such importance and centrality, is, as so many hon. Members have said, meant to be irreversible. That is what the treaty says.
    It is irreversible in the sense, contrary to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said an hour or so ago, that if the Labour party could persuade the British electorate at the next general election, once the treaty is in force, to elect a Labour Government committed to a different economic policy from that laid down by the European central bank, we should have to say to the electorate on the morning after that election, "We're very sorry, but we can't implement a different economic policy. That matter is beyond political debate and action within this country. It is now a matter for the European central bank." Unless we could persuade each of our 11 partners to change that policy in some respects, it would be beyond our unilateral action to change it.
    What answer is given to that argument by those who oppose a referendum? Fundamentally, what I think they say, since they cannot, in the end, deny the black and white provisions of the treaty, is that it does not really matter, that these issues are of concern only to a lot of fuddy-duddies who are preoccupied with antiquated concepts such as sovereignty and who love the word "sovereignty" because it has a wonderful 19th century ring about it. It may be easy to sneer at the word "sovereignty", but it is not so easy to sneer at the words "democracy" and "self-government". Those are the issues, those are the words, those are the terms which are truly involved in this debate.
    What an astonishment it is to discover that it is in this House of Commons, of all institutions, that the view is expressed that these are matters of little consequence and that it is in this House of Commons that there is such a fundamental misunderstanding of what these issues really mean. That is the view which is taken in a Parliament which, in its history, traditions and function, is the very symbol of our nationhood, the very mechanism by which we subject to democratic control the power of the Executive, and which is the very instrument by which we define that self which we talk of self-government.
    414
    Democracy is not just a matter of mechanisms, or of elections to this, that or the other body. Democracy is a form of self-government. To say, "Well, we can give up the powers of self-government which we exercise, because we shall have elections to a European Parliament" does not meet the point, if the self with which the British people identify is the British self rather than a European self.
    Each of us, in our various ways, reaches this place in many cases as a result of great effort. We naturally feel very pleased with ourselves when we get here. It is a privilege to serve in the House of Commons. Merely to be here is a reward in itself, but getting here is not only a matter of self-congratulations, of taking the plaudits and enjoying the benefits. To come to the House is surely also to acknowledge and accept responsibilities, responsibilities not only to the Whips, to one's local paper or one's personal ambition but to what the House represents in our history and government.
    If we, as elected politicians, fail to understand that, if we turn our backs on those responsibilities through complacency, arrogance or ignorance, or if we get the political process wrong, we leave the people no alternative: they will have to get it right. They are chilling words. When one looks around the world and sees the vast majority of people who do not enjoy the benefits of democratic self-government, which we now so carelessly propose to give away, and the lengths to which they are prepared to go to get it right, we learn that, at the very least, it can be a messy, confusing and unattractive process.
    I hope that when the time comes to vote on new clause 49, enough people—I wish there were more here now—will recognise their responsibilities to this country, to this institution and to the people who elect us. That is the case for a referendum, and that is why we shall press new clause 49 to a Division.
    Sir Terence Higgins: It is extraordinary and immensely sad that those who have been arguing hardest and at the greatest length that the Maastricht treaty and the Bill will reduce the power and influence of our Parliament are now resorting to the use of a device that I believe strikes far more fundamentally at the powers and responsibilities of this House in order to achieve their objective of defeating the Bill and preventing ratification of the treaty.
    If we continue to add to the unfortunate precedents —referendums have not as yet been that numerous—we shall inevitably undermine our system of representative parliamentar democracy. I stress the word "representative". We all know of Edmund Burke's famous dictum that we are sent here as representatives, not delegates. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) who moved the new clause but who is no longer here was a little too fair to Edmund Burke who made the speech containing that dictum to the Bristol electors after he had just been elected, not before. At every election in which I have stood, I have strongly put forward that view. I stand for election to come to this place as a representative, not as a delegate.
    The referendum is the exact antithesis of that concept. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills spoke as if the referendum rather than the system of representative democracy was the norm. That is quite untrue. I speak with a much passion as he did. I believe strongly that we must defend that representative system. I am not sent here as a computer—
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Sir Terence Higgins: No, I shall not give way now. I may do so a little later.
    I am not sent here as a computer to vote as I would if I knew what the majority of my constituents believed was right on a particular issue. We all have a far more difficult task than that. Our task is to listen to our constituents, to take into account the views that they express, to study matters, whatever they may be, as profoundly as we can, to listen to the debates in the Chamber, and then to vote as our constituents would vote if they had had all those advantages.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Sir Terence Higgins: I may give way later, but not now.
    I believe that that is our fundamental task. It is immensely difficult. It is also important that we should vote not simply in the interests of our constituents in that sense, but in the interests of the country as a whole. One crucial difference between a system of representative democracy and a system of referendums is that minority interests can be taken into account in a representative democracy. In a real sense a system of referendums represents the dictatorship of the majority—that is important in terms of race or whatever other interest groups may be affected.
    It is right that we should deal with the fundamental principle of referendums in the debate because if further precedent is set the principle of representative democracy will be undermined. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is stuck with a piece of jargon—"Trust the people." Yes, of course it is important that we should trust our constituents, but our duty is to trust that they will express their views to us on how we should vote on an issue, but our decision is based not simply on numbers, but on the arguments. It is important that we should listen to our constituents, but then—
    Mr. Budgen rose—
    Sir Terence Higgins: I have made it clear to my hon. Friend that I may give way later, but not now.
    It is important that we take into account the arguments that our constituents put to us, and that we in turn advance the views that we may have, which might emanate from the House of Commons. That is a difficult and complex task that we must undertake. That is the sense in which we should trust the people.
    The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who was not prepared to give way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall give way in a moment. The hon. Member for Dagenham said that it was arrogant to say that we shall take a view which may differ from that of our constituents, but in my view we must weigh their arguments. That is important if one is to be an effective Member of Parliament.
    I have not heard many arguments from my constituents about the Maastricht treaty. The problem has been rather that I have had to explain the treaty to them. I have done so, at great length throughout the election campaign, at numerous public meetings. I have had a video made explaining the arguments, and so on—
    Mr. Cash: I would like to see that.
    Sir Terence Higgins: I shall be happy to lend my video to my hon. Friend. It is important that we have that to-and-fro strength of argument; that two-way flow of ideas.
    A referendum is a totally crude and different way of approaching an issue. We would be playing a pure numbers game, without taking into account the importance of the various arguments. That is what I believe is the fundamental difference between our representative system of democracy and the principle of a referendum.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Sir Terence Higgins: In just one moment.
    The crucial question would be: what question would be posed in the referendum? There would have to be a crude question and a crude answer. We could be asked the simple question, "Do you deplore Delors?" I must admit that on that question I should be inclined to vote yes, but the gut reaction would be at an appallingly superficial level. It would certainly not take into account any of the arguments that we have had over 29 sitting days in the Committee.
    Mr. Budgen: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think that I am being facetious. I have watched my right hon. Friend very closely for a decade and I know that he is a very distinguished right hon. Member of Parliament who has honourably followed his arguments about the representative nature of our role in this place.
    9.45 pm
    However, surely the only way in which we can represent our constituents and express our mature judgment in their interests is if the Government exercise a certain degree of goodwill and generosity towards their supporters. That is particularly important when both the Opposition and Government Front Benches agree on a very important constitutional measure. If there were simply a crude and aggressive attitude towards the Back Benchers on either side of the House who disagree, it would appear that the whole House agreed with the measure. At the present time, we have not the respect for individual judgment, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) referred, but simply crude, aggressive and authoritarian behaviour towards those who disagree.
    Sir Terence Higgins: I have had the pleasure over the years of serving on various Committees with my hon. Friend and I am always concerned when he makes complimentary remarks about me. He is really saying that when hon. Members seek to fulfil the duty that I sought to outline a moment ago—
    Mr. Budgen: They are prevented from doing that.
    Sir Terence Higgins: My hon. Friend says that they are prevented from doing that. He really means that they are failing to carry out that duty.
    Mr. Budgen: Some fail, some are prevented.
    Sir Terence Higgins: It is no good saying that some are failing and some are prevented. Quite simply, my hon. Friend is arguing that the hon. Members who arc succumbing in the way that he has proposed—assuming that that is the reality of the position—are failing in their duty. I do not accept that that is true of hon. Members.
    Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman may not be surprised to learn that I agree with a great deal of what he has said, particularly about referendums. The question in 1975 might have been, "Do you believe Harold Wilson when he says that no law can be passed without the consent of a British Minister and that the threat of EMU has disappeared—yes or no?"
    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the ground rules of democracy, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) referred a few moments ago, have been broken successively in the following respects: first, we were taken in over "negotiate no more, no less"; secondly, Baroness Thatcher agreed to European political union and EMU on the basis of a previous so-called pledge without any mandate from this House; and the present Prime Minister claims a mandate on a treaty that he had not published before the general election. All three have broken the ground rules suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and therefore some of us have nothing left but the device that the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) criticises. However, at least it is a device that we can use.
    Sir Terence Higgins: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it is a device. Before I consider that device, I want to consider a point which, strangely, has not been mentioned in this debate, although it has been in other debates on referendums. I want to consider whether the referendum should be advisory or mandatory. In that respect, we run into some very difficult issues.
    If the referendum is simply advisory, it is difficult to see how any new arguments could be advanced which we in this House have not, over many days, considered very carefully. If the referendum is mandatory, that would be a total betrayal of what we are sent here to do. We must consider whether the referendum must be advisory or mandatory and the hon. Member for Dagenham did not consider that point.
    Mr. Gould: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Terence Higgins: No, I will not as the hon. Gentleman would not give way to me.
    The most absurd way of proceeding would be to sit for 29 days in Committee—and no doubt for longer on Report and thereafter—so that we are all convinced of what the outcome should be one way or the other and then have a referendum which reversed that decision. Will we then come back to the House and say, "We have considered it all clearly; we made up our minds; we debated it at immense length; the referendum went the other way and we will reverse the decision which we, exercising our judgment in the House of Commons, reached in the traditional way"?
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Yes.
    Sir Terence Higgins: If so, there is a big gulf between us as to our understanding of the democratic system in the House of Commons. I shall come to the point which was made a moment ago.
    Mr. Barnes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Terence Higgins: I will take up the point which was made in an intervention because I have not addressed it. I shall structure my remarks as best I can.
    The hon. Member for Dagenham referred to the history of the matter and the way in which we have gone from the
    418
    original decision that was taken in 1972 through the further decisions and the passing of the Single European Act to the present stage. Earlier, I said that the referendum process, which was used by the Labour Government purely for political expediency, set further in concrete the decision that was made than would have been the case if we had not had the referendum. Paradoxically, those who advocated a referendum at that time, who then lost, have suffered considerably and have reduced the degree of flexibility with regard to subsequent events. We must not make the same mistake.
    I shall take up the point that was made about Dicey. The hon. Member for Dagenham must look at different editions of Dicey if he wants to get the conclusion. Neither the first edition of Dicey nor the last was in favour of a referendum. The only editions which were in favour of a referendum were those in which he, for reason of political expediency, had decided to advocate it. I had to study Dicey at Cambridge. It was an unbelievable bore. Dicey has been given too much weight.
    Mr. Budgen: He made a living out of it.
    Sir Terence Higgins: The former right hon. Member for Finchley was keen on quoting Dicey. In her famous speech —one might almost say notorious—at the time of the 1975 referendum debate, she referred to the various editions of Dicey. I had forgotten that. When she was sitting next to me just before she went to the other place, she said, "It is all in Dicey". I said, "But you have got the wrong edition". She had forgotten her original speech.
    My point is that those who advocate referendums—the plural of referendum is referendums—typically do so when they have lost the argument.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: How did my right hon. Friend vote?
    Sir Terence Higgins: I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate), who put much stress on the Irish referendum. That example is somewhat different.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: That is disgraceful.
    Sir Terence Higgins: I think—[Interruption.] I am conscious of the fact that we are approaching the 10 o'clock motion. There is some distinction between—to use a piece of jargon—a plebescite and a referendum. On issues involving borders, there is a distinction. I have consistently voted against referendums, and I shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Ray Whitney: When my right hon. Friend referred to the question whether referendums—I agree with the plural—should be advisory or mandatory, is he aware that our hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who is so much in favour of referendums—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not."] I misunderstood him. He made it clear that he would not be bound by referendums. I am delighted to know that he will be in the right Lobby tonight, for a change.
    Sir Terence Higgins: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) must speak for himself. As I understand it, he has always been strongly against referendums. I trust that he will be consistent.
    Many hon. Members are inconsistent about referendums. [HON. MEMBERS: "So are you"] No, I have made a

    419
    distinction on the Irish issue. That is a legitimate distinction. Except on that issue, I have consistently and will continue consistently to oppose referendums.
    Back in 1975 the Labour Government, for reasons of expediency and divisions in the party, went ahead with a referendum, thereby creating a further dangerous precedent. The present Government should be congratulated on not going along with that approach. They have stuck to their guns on the issue. They have not been prepared to resort to a referendum to deal with any differences which may exist in the party.
    If we examine the matter objectively, we see that there is a clear point of principle and that the House would be right to reject new clause 8. There has been some suggestion that even if the new clauses are defeated this evening, as I profoundly hope that they will, there might be more support for the idea of a referendum in the upper House. I am bound to say that it would be a dangerous action, when the elected House had rejected the idea of a referendum, for the other House to seek to reverse that decision. That would be the antithesis of what our system of representative democracy stands for. That is the basis on which I believe that all Members of Parliament have a duty to perform.
    Mr. Salmond: I have every confident hope that I shall finish this speech in prime time tomorrow afternoon. I shall certainly vote against the 10 o'clock motion.
    I rise to speak in strong support of new clause 49 and to advance some arguments why amendment (a) to that new clause on the social chapter should be properly considered by the House. The right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) argued that our view about referendums could be selective. He suggested that we could pick and choose what referendums we had. I believe that we must apply a consistent criterion when choosing issues on which referendums should be held. Surely that consistent criterion should be that referendums should be employed when major constitutional issues are at stake.
    So the first question for us this evening is whether the Maastricht treaty is a major constitutional issue.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) clearly showed that there is a border between Scotland and England? Therefore, I imagine that he takes the view that, if there is to be a referendum on borders, that is one border which must certainly be considered.
    Mr. Salmond: I have noticed that the hon. Gentleman has recently discovered an enthusiasm for the concept of Scottish popular sovereignty. He rightly said a few days ago that, in 1707, the Scottish Parliament moved into adjournment. His point was well made. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that I agree with him only rarely, and I hope that he will take my remarks as a genuine compliment.
    My point about the consistency of referendums is that we must decide whether Maastricht is a major constitutional issue. I know that the Government have attempted from time to time to say that Maastricht is not such an issue and that nothing much is at stake. To paraphrase them, they say, "It is all right, chaps—everything is going to turn out all right." But most of us
    420
    who look seriously at the content of the Bill and the treaty accept that major constitutional issues are obviously at stake in the Maastricht process.
    Powers will be transferred to a central authority in the European Community, either now or in the foreseeable future. Many of us think that it a thoroughly good idea and are none too concerned about the dimunition of the powers of the House. But many other hon. Members think that it is a bad idea, and want jealously to protect what powers—real or imagined—the House possesses.
    The point at issue in the debate is not whether the transfers of power are right or wrong, but whether the subject qualifies as one of the major constitutional issues that should properly be put to the people in a referendum.
    Mr. Tim Rathbone: To follow on from the hon. Gentleman's argument, may I ask him why he thinks that there was not a referendum either on signing the treaty of Rome or on entering the single market?
    Mr. Salmond: The argument has been advanced that perhaps there should have been, but there was a referendum on the European Community in 1975. There were referendums in Northern Ireland and Scotland—
    It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report progress.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
    That, at this day's sitting, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill may be proceded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
    The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 280.

    Division No. 244]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Burns, Simon

    Alexander, Richard

    Burt, Alistair

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Butler, Peter

    Alton, David

    Butterfill, John

    Amess, David

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Ancram, Michael

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Ashby, David

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Churchill, Mr

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Clappison, James

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Colvin, Michael

    Baldry, Tony

    Congdon, David

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Conway, Derek

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Bates, Michael

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Cormack, Patrick

    Bellingham, Henry

    Couchman, James

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Booth, Hartley

    Dafis, Cynog

    Boswell, Tim

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Day, Stephen

    Bowden, Andrew

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Bowis, John

    Devlin, Tim

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Brazier, Julian

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Dover, Den

    Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Duncan, Alan

    421

    Dunn, Bob

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Eggar, Tim

    Key, Robert

    Elletson, Harold

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

    Evennett, David

    Knox, David

    Faber, David

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Leigh, Edward

    Fishburn. Dudley

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Forman, Nigel

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lidington, David

    Forth, Eric

    Lightbown, David

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Luff, Peter

    Freeman, Roger

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    French, Douglas

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Fry, Peter

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Gale, Roger

    MacKay, Andrew

    Gallie, Phil

    Maclean, David

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Maclennan, Robert

    Garnier, Edward

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Madel, David

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gorst, John

    Malone, Gerald

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Mans, Keith

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Marland, Paul

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Mates, Michael

    Hague, William

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Merchant, Piers

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Milligan, Stephen

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Mills, Iain

    Harris, David

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hayes, Jerry

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Heald, Oliver

    Moss, Malcolm

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Nelson, Anthony

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hendry, Charles

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hicks, Robert

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Norris, Steve

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Horam, John

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Page, Richard

    Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

    Paice, James

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Pawsey, James

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Pickles, Eric

    Hunter, Andrew

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Jack, Michael

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Redwood, John

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Richards, Rod

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Riddick, Graham

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    422

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Tracey, Richard

    Sackville, Tom

    Tredinnick, David

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Trend, Michael

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Trotter, Neville

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Tyler, Paul

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Viggers, Peter

    Shersby, Michael

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Sims, Roger

    Walden, George

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Wallace, James

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Waller, Gary

    Soames, Nicholas

    Ward, John

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Watts, John

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Wells, Bowen

    Spring, Richard

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Sproat, Iain

    Whitney, Ray

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Whittingdale, John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Steen, Anthony

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Stephen, Michael

    Willetts, David

    Stern, Michael

    Wilshire, David

    Stewart, Allan

    Wolfson, Mark

    Streeter, Gary

    Wood, Timothy

    Sumberg, David

    Yeo, Tim

    Sykes, John

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Taylor, John M.(Solihull)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

    Thomason, Roy

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Canavan, Dennis

    Ainger, Nick

    Cann, Jamie

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Cash, William

    Allen, Graham

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Clapham, Michael

    Austin-Walker, John

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Barnes, Harry

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Barron, Kevin

    Clelland, David

    Battle, John

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Bayley, Hugh

    Coffey, Ann

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Cohen, Harry

    Beggs, Roy

    Connarty, Michael

    Bell, Stuart

    Corbett, Robin

    Bendall, Vivian

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Cousins, Jim

    Benton, Joe

    Cox, Tom

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cran, James

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Cryer, Bob

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Cummings, John

    Blair, Tony

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Blunkett, David

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Boateng, Paul

    Dalyell, Tam

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Darling, Alistair

    Boyes, Roland

    Davidson, Ian

    Bradley, Keith

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Brown, N.(N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

    Burden, Richard

    Denham, John

    Butcher, John

    Dewar, Donald

    Byers, Stephen

    Dixon, Don

    Caborn, Richard

    Dobson, Frank

    Callaghan, Jim

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Dowd, Jim

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    423

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    McCartney, Ian

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Macdonald, Calum

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    McFall, John

    Eastham, Ken

    McKelvey, William

    Enright, Derek

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Etherington, Bill

    McLeish, Henry

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    McMaster, Gordon

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    McNamara, Kevin

    Fatchett, Derek

    McWilliam, John

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Madden, Max

    Fisher, Mark

    Mahon, Alice

    Flynn, Paul

    Marek, Dr John

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Marlow, Tony

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Foulkes, George

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Fraser, John

    Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Martlew, Eric

    Galbraith, Sam

    Maxton, John

    Galloway, George

    Meacher, Michael

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Meale, Alan

    Garrett, John

    Michael, Alun

    George, Bruce

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Milburn, Alan

    Gill, Christopher

    Miller, Andrew

    Godsitf, Roger

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Gould, Bryan

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Graham, Thomas

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Mudie, George

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mullin, Chris

    Gunnell, John

    Murphy, Paul

    Hain, Peter

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Hanson, David

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Hardy, Peter

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    O'Hara, Edward

    Harvey, Nick

    Olner, William

    Henderson, Doug

    O'Neill, Martin

    Heppell, John

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Parry, Robert

    Hinchliffe, David

    Pendry, Tom

    Hoey, Kate

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Home Robertson, John

    Pope, Greg

    Hood, Jimmy

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Prescott, John

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Purchase, Ken

    Hutton, John

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Ingram, Adam

    Radice, Giles

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Randall, Stuart

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Jamieson, David

    Redmond, Martin

    Janner, Greville

    Reid, Dr John

    Jessel, Toby

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Jowell, Tessa

    Rogers, Allan

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Rooker, Jeff

    Keen, Alan

    Rooney, Terry

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Rowlands, Ted

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Salmond, Alex

    Knapman, Roger

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Sheerman, Barry

    Legg, Barry

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Leighton, Ron

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Lewis, Terry

    Short, Clare

    Livingstone, Ken

    Simpson, Alan

    Lord, Michael

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Loyden, Eddie

    Skinner, Dennis

    McAllion, John

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

    424

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Walley, Joan

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    Soley, Clive

    Wareing, Robert N

    Spearing, Nigel

    Watson, Mike

    Spellar, John

    Welsh, Andrew

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wilkinson, John

    Stevenson, George

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Stott, Roger

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Wilson, Brian

    Straw, Jack

    Winnick, David

    Sweeney, Walter

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D.(Strgfd)

    Wise, Audrey

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Worthington, Tony

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Tipping, Paddy

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Trimble, David

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Turner, Dennis

    Vaz, Keith

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Again considered in Committee.
    Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Salmond: I can only take that vote as a vote of confidence in my speech. Clearly, hon. Members wanted to hear a great deal more, and could not wait until tomorrow for it. There are some advantages in having one's speech interrupted by the 10 o'clock motion, not least because one can hear the football results, albeit the result of the European Champions cup match was disappointing. [HON. MEMBERS: "What was the score?"] Unfortunately, Glasgow Rangers are out of the competition.[Interruption.]
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Would hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?
    Mr. Salmond: I am sure, Mr. Lofthouse, that you will have interpreted the result of that match as a European issue, and agree that it is quite legitimate to mention it.[Interruption.]
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am having great difficulty in hearing the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Salmond: I notice that, when I speak about football scores, hon. Members hang on my every word. I understand that Rangers narrowly failed to qualify for the final of the European Champions cup.
    On new clause 49, I had developed the argument that Maastricht was a major constitutional issue which, regardless of what hon. Members believe about the issue, could properly be regarded as major enough to be put to the people in a referendum. However, there are other specific arguments, because it must be clear that we have reached, to use a fashionable word, gridlock on several keys aspects of the Bill.
    We are gridlocked because some hon. Members are pro-Maastricht and the social chapter. That belief encompasses the Liberal Democrats and the majority of the Labour party. Some people are pro-Maastricht but against the social chapter. That is the official view of the Conservatives. Some Labour Back Benchers are pro the social chapter but against the Maastricht treaty, and some people are against both.

    425
    That gridlocked combination of forces means that we are guaranteed no meaningful parliamentary vote on the critical subject of the social chapter. Therefore, the social chapter should also be put to the people in a consultative referendum. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled amendment (a) to new clause 49. If rationale and logic have anything to do with the process of votes in the Committee, that should be an important development.
    It has already been noted that the outcome of tonight's vote is in the hands of the Labour party. The arithmetic shows that, if Labour Members are united in voting for a referendum, the Government will lose the vote on new clause 49 by about 30 votes. Therefore, the matter is entirely in the hands of Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen.
    Last Friday, 16 April, Labour's spokesman on Europe, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), wrote to me outlining his reasons for voting against a referendum on Maastricht. The letter states:
    "The Labour Party has made it clear on a number of occasions that it will oppose a Refendum on Maastricht for one principal and very good reason. A Referendum would involve a Yes/No question on the Maastricht Treaty. The Maastricht Treaty provides for an opt out from the Social Chapter for the United Kingdom alone. A Yes/No question on the Maastricht Treaty would therefore not provide any opportunity for a reservation to be put forward in relation to the Social Chapter."
    That was the
    "one principal and very good reason"
    for Labour not wishing to support the new clause on a referendum.
    I put it to those on the Labour Front Bench that the difficulty can be reasonably resolved if they support amendment (a). If that is the one, principal and very good reason for not supporting the referendum new clause, that difficulty can be resolved and, hopefully, there can be some reconsideration.
    Earlier on in the debate, the right hon. Member for Copeland—I nearly said for Sellafield—(Dr. Cunningham) argued that this was not the appropriate way forward, because the Labour party would be trusting the anti-Maastricht Conservative forces to vote the social chapter amendment on to the new clause. That argument displays a surprising ignorance of the procedures of the House of Commons.
    All of us are familiar with "Erskine May", because we have looked at it from time to time. It shows that the procedures of the House of Commons are quite simple. If new clause 49 were to be carried, the Chairman of Ways and Means would take a decision as to whether to call a Division on amendment (a). Whether or not that amendment were voted on, and whether or not that vote were in favour, there would be a further vote and a decision on whether to incorporate new clause 49, amended or unamended, into the body of the treaty.
    The danger that the right hon. Member for Copeland foresaw—that the Opposition could be conned into voting for a referendum and then find that they would have a referendum with no reference to the social chapter—is not a real danger. On the second vote on new clause 49, they could simply switch position if there were not support elsewhere for the amendment to incorporate a second question into new clause 49 to cover the social chapter. The Opposition Front-Bench team have nothing to fear about proceeding to a positive vote for a referendum and
    426
    putting us in the position of having the only real opportunity to make a decisive vote in favour of the social chapter that will be allowed to us.
    On the same day that the hon. Member for Hamilton wrote to me explaining the Labour party's fears, I tabled amendment (a) in an attempt to solve that difficulty. However, in The Scotsman on Friday, I found that the hon. Member for Hamilton had decided that the amendments had no chance of being debated or accepted. We are debating them, and I am grateful that the Chairman of Ways and Means decides those matters and not the hon. Member for Hamilton. I hope that he will have a quick confab with his colleagues on the Front Bench and decide, in this new situation, whether the Labour party can support new clause 49, and then go on to vote for amendment (a), which would include a question on the social chapter in the referendum. Then, if we are let down by the anti-Maastricht Tories —I am sure that we would not be, given the expression of interest that I am seeing there—the Labour party can reverse its vote.
    I was disappointed by another part of the article in The Scotsman. The hon. Member for Hamilton said that the SNP campaign for a referendum was "belated and last-minute". I find that surprising, because, between 2 October last year and 13 April this year, I have written no fewer than four times to the leader of the Labour party arguing the case for the referendum new clause. I have had no reply to my letters.
    I can think of only one other issue in Scottish politics where the Leader of the Labour party—normally a courteous man—is as reticent. I will not develop the argument about local council affairs on Monklands district council. I find it surprising that, given that the leader of the Labour party has not answered four letters over that period, I can be told that this is a belated—
    Mr. Allan Rogers: That is wrong.
    Mr. Salmond: I have the four letters here, and I am willing to make them available in the Library, or to the hon. Gentleman. It is surprising that, having argued consistently over that period, I should be told that this is a belated and last-minute campaign. It most certainly is not.
    I have reasonable hopes that the leader of the Labour party might be interested in the referendum new clause. It is not something that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has consistently opposed throughout his political career. On the contrary, he has been on record several times arguing in favour of the referendum as a legitimate device in constitutional politics.
    For example, there is the "Bulletin of Scottish Politics" of spring 1981. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was being questioned on a Scottish referendum on devolution, when he said:
    "I think another referendum (on devolution) is inevitable. Without one, there is no hope of getting any significant constitutional change through Parliament in a reasonable timescale. Also, given that we had to concede it once—albeit for tactical reasons—it would be difficult or impossible to refuse it on another occasion. I would add that this principle seems to apply in the case of the Common Market too. We have now definitely made referenda part of the constitutional equipment, and we have to stick by that."
    10.30 pm
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Even if the initiative taken by the Scottish National party was belated, pathetic and cynical, which some, rightly or wrongly, have said, will the hon. Gentleman make it abundantly clear to the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench and to all Opposition Back-Bench Members, and to their trade union friends with whom they are associated, that if they really wanted to they could secure their wonderful social chapter tonight?
    Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman's words speak for themselves. As I have said, the Labour party does not have to trust the hon. Gentleman to vote for the social chapter in the form of amendment (a) to the new clause. If he did not, and the amendment was not agreed to following a Division, the Opposition would have the backstop option of not pressing new clause 49 in a subsequent Division. The Labour party is in a no-lose position if it is prepared to vote for new clause 49.
    We hope for conversion in the next couple of hours or so. I hope that all Labour Members who are being urged to go home by the Opposition Whips so that only the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench are present for the embarrassment later this evening will be called back now that new arguments are being advanced. We live in hope that the arguments will have some importance in our proceedings as they are developed. We may—who knows? —have a chance later in our proceedings to develop the arguments further. There may be more time for the hon. Member for Hamilton to change his mind.
    Mr. George Robertson: Many months ago, the hon. Gentleman tabled new clause 48, which states:
    "This Act shall not come into force until the House of Commons has expressed a view of the desirability of a referendum in each component nation of the United Kingdom with respect to the commencement of this Act."
    Last Thursday, the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) tabled an amendment to that new clause, in which he urged that there should be a specific question on the social chapter. How is it that, for about eight months, the new clause did not refer to the social chapter? It seems that the SNP has recently discovered the social chapter and is intent on making a greal deal of it. Its position has changed since Thursday.
    Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman should refer to his correspondence. On 16 April, he wrote to me and specified that there was
    "one principal and very good reason"
    for the Labour party not backing the referendum amendment or new clause. He believed, wrongly as it turned out—
    Mr. Robertson: That is not the position.
    Mr. Salmond: Presumably the hon. Gentleman has control over what he writes. He wrote that there was
    "one principal and very good reason,
    but perhaps I was wrong to take him by such words. On 16 April, however, the hon. Gentleman—presumably he was speaking for the Labour party—identified his belief that it would not be possible to develop the social chapter argument as part of the referendum argument as the
    "principal and very good reason
    for the Labour party not supporting the new clause on the referendum.
    428
    In our desire to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friends and I amended our new clause on the referendum. He must know that last week I had no way of knowing—presumably he had not—which new clause on a referendum would be accepted, so I took the precaution of amending all five. We now know, of course, that No. 49 was accepted.[Interruption,] The hon. Member for Hamilton says, from a sedentary position, that there are other reasons for Labour's not being prepared to support the new clause on the referendum. It is a pity that he did not mention them to me last week, but never mind. Let us consider what some of those "other reasons" might be.
    I have heard other Labour Members say that a party conference decision last year must be respected. I read the speech made at the conference by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman); I remember it well, as a speech that was judged in relation to the particular time at which it was made. It was a very good speech. In particular, the right hon. Gentleman argued that the Maastricht Bill had perhaps been fatally wounded by the Danish referendum. He said that there was no way of knowing whether it would return to the Floor of the House. He asked why the Labour party should split itself internally over something that might never arise. Unfortunately, that argument has been overtaken by events; the question has now arisen, and it cannot be dodged.
    At that time, the right hon. Member for Gorton had no way of realising that a head-on, meaningful vote on the social chapter would not be allowed during the passage of the Maastricht Bill. That surprised many hon. Members, and could not have been foreseen at the time of the Labour party conference.
    There is substantial evidence, with the benefit of the information that we now have, that there is a substantial change of mind among large sections of the Labour movement. Already, we have heard how the Scottish Trades Union Congress—composed of exactly the same unions that composed the Trades Union Congress, which also voted, or at least advised, against a referendum last year—today voted overwhelmingly in favour of a referendum on Maastricht. I was not present myself, but I suspect that the arguments in favour of a referendum were similar to the arguments that we should deploy tonight.
    The STUC would be frustrated by parliamentary processes not allowing a vote on the social chapter. It would be well aware that, since the general election, the Scottish Labour party has developed a policy on the constitutional question in favour of a referendum in Scotland—in favour, moreover, of a referendum in Scotland with two questions on the paper: exactly the kind of referendum that my hon. Friends and I are suggesting.
    Mr. Cash: No doubt one of the STUC's reasons for taking such a position is the fact that it has discovered articles such as that written by James Michie for the National Association of Local Government Officers about the effect that the Maastricht treaty and the proposals for economic and monetary union will have on unemployment. The referendum question is not just a theological or constitutional issue; it is about whether people will be able to keep their jobs. We only hope—and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will want to suggest—that the TUC and the United Kingdom take the same position, and that the coal miners do the same.
    Mr. Salmond: I hope that other groups will do so as well. I should have thought, however, that the STUC would be far more influenced by the knowledge that the cause of Europe has been done few favours by our debates. I think that many STUC delegates would think that the argument for Europe would be far better deployed in the country, with more principle and conviction, than it is being deployed in the House of Commons.
    The hon. Gentleman will also know of the deep-seated knowledge in Scotland, in particular, of the constitutional principle of popular sovereignty, which is at the heart of the Scottish tradition—although it is not necessarily always at the heart of the tradition in this place.
    I think that the STUC will have realised today that the Scottish and European cause would be helped if the argument about the future of Europe were taken to the people of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I am certain that the delegates in Glasgow today hope for a change of mind on the part of Labour Front Benchers, which I—along with many other hon. Members—urge on them this evening. The STUC will be mindful of the importance of defeating the Government in an area that is absolutely central to their legislative programme, with all the consequences that might flow from such a defeat.
    The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) came under pressure for suggesting that he believed that there was some conspiracy about the fact that we are debating such a vital subject at this time of night, with the vote pushed into the wee small hours of the morning. I subscribe to that view. There is something suspicious about this vital debate being timetabled in such a way as to ensure that we go into the Division Lobbies very late in the evening. Many people would prefer the vote to be in the dead of night, as opposed to the full light of day.
    I suspect that many of those who sit on the Opposition Front Bench will soon prefer to forget about this evening's proceedings and about the vote that perhaps they will engage in later on. I warn those on the Opposition Front Bench that, although they may prefer to forget the dirty deeds that will be done later this evening, the Scottish National party will make sure that the people of Scotland neither forgive nor forget if they support the Government on this vote.
    Mr. Peter Fry: I have been sitting here since the debate started. What is significant about it is the paucity of reasons why we should not have a referendum.
    The speech of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was not so much a declaration of policy as a smokescreen to hide the Labour party's confusion over this issue. One of the reasons often given is that the general election was the time for decision and that that is why the Government have a mandate. However, not a single person during the election campaign ever discussed Maastricht with me; no one asked about it; nobody wanted to discuss in on the doorstep; nobody raised it at public meetings. Therefore, it seems to me to be something of a fraud to say that the general election campaign settled the Maastricht treaty issue.
    Another point that has been put forward was referred to by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). He intimated that it had been suggested that the public would not understand—that the issues were too complicated. My answer to that is that when we ask people to vote in a general election we ask for a pretty simple decision but
    430
    what goes into the decision that they take can be very complicated indeed. Many people, for example, like so much of the Labour party's manifesto, so much of the Conservative party's manifesto, and even some of the Liberals'. They take those complicated issues and translate them into one decision. I see no reason why a referendum should not be subjected to exactly the same procedure.
    Another point that has been raised is that Parliament has already decided and we do not need a referendum—the decision has already been taken. My view has been heavily influenced by my membership of the Council of Europe. I have discovered that there are two versions of the Maastricht treaty. There is the version that is sold in this country. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sincerely believes in what he says and sincerely thinks that the promises he has made can be honoured, but when one talks to continental colleagues one hears about a totally different version.
    Mr. Budgen: The Foreign Secretary has a wonderful way of dealing with this. He says that they have rather elaborate language, by which he means that we ought to disregard the language when it seems inconsistent with the gloss that the Government put on the treaty.
    Mr. Fry: I am grateful for that intervention because I had the privilege of listening to Chancellor Kohl at the latest session of the Council of Europe. He received tremendous applause for claiming that the train to European unity was on the move. What worried me was that not only was the train on the move but he was the driver, and I suspect that he had put down the lines in advance so he knew exactly what the destination would be.
    10.45 pm
    It is important that the people of this country realise that, no matter how honest the Government's intent, the vast majority of the Community see things very differently and want to interpret the treaty in its exact form. They will not later accept arguments that this or that does not matter.
    It is also argued that holding a referendum is not the British way. I respect the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), but there have been referendums and we are now dealing with matters of great constitutional significance. I argue that the handing over of power under the treaty is more substantial than some of the reasons for having had referendums in the past.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Is there not a fundamental difference between asking people whether they want pubs open on a Sunday or whether they want devolution, which is wholly within the Government's competence, and asking people to give a view on a package deal, a treaty which has been negotiated with our partners?
    Mr. Fry: My response is exactly what I said earlier. Yes, it is a complicated issue, but let us not insult the intelligence of the British electorate. We are jolly glad when they elect us to this place, so it is right to give them the opportunity to express their views on such a complicated issue.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the attitude expressed by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is paternalistic and patronising? We are here because our constituents vote for

    431
    us and we must represent them. At the end of the day, if we cannot trust the people of this country, who can we trust?
    Mr. Fry: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's sentiments.
    Sir Roger Moate: Will my hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that the Northern Ireland border poll was nothing to do with devolution within the United Kingdom and was more serious than the closing hours of pubs? Was it not wrong for the hon. Gentleman to draw that analogy? This is a matter of great constitutional importance and to treat it with contempt by comparing it with pub opening hours is foolish.
    Mr. Fry: I am grateful for that information, which I hope that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has absorbed.
    Perhaps the final reason for not having a referendum is the fear that the electorate might say no. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether it is the case that, despite the full power of the Government's publicity machine, despite the full support of members of the official Opposition Front Bench, the Liberal party, most of the media, the Confederation of British Industry and the great and the good, in three weeks the Government could not obtain a yes vote in a referendum? If they could not, I suggest that that is the best reason why we should not accept the treaty.
    Of course, there are reasons why we should have a referendum. One of the main ones is that I have not heard any effective reason why we should not. However, as someone has already said this evening, the main argument must be that it would give the people of this country the opportunity to express their views. More particularly, it would mean that the people who argue passionately for and against would have to put their case to the country. The complaint of many constituents—that they do not understand—would be removed.
    There is overwhelming evidence that a considerable majority of the electorate want a referendum and would feel cheated if they did not get one. There is a strong argument for explaining Maastricht so that people can discover what it will mean, instead of discovering the consequences when it is too late to do anything about it. It is true that some other countries have voted yes. The Irish voted yes because they believed that they would gain considerably from the distribution of EC funds. In some countries we would call that bribery and it is bribery with other people's money, with our money. I do not think that one could ever accuse the British people of being ungenerous, but I suggest that when we are lining up those whom we should support, those who are suffering in Somalia, Sudan and Bosnia come a long way ahead of the people of Greece, Portugal and Ireland.
    Mr. Budgen: What about Italy?
    Mr. Fry: I will deal with Italy in a moment.
    The third reason why I believe that we should involve the British people in making the decision is that it makes good political sense. If the country accepts the Maastricht treaty—I believe that there would be a fair chance of that happening, after a strong campaign—at least the people will have accepted considerable responsibility for the decision. If it goes terribly wrong and becomes terribly unpopular, I can just see the politicians of the day falling
    432
    over backwards to try to deny that they had anything to do with taking us into that monstrous organisation. At least if we brought the people into consideration they would share that responsibility. I should have thought that that was the right way to go forward into an uncertain future.
    Far from being un-British, as some have suggested, the referendum would illustrate the depths of debate that there has been, and should be, in the country on the issue. One of the most disappointing aspects of the treaty has been the fact that most of our partners have failed to discuss the matter in great depth. The reason for that is not too difficult to find.
    My contacts with continental politicians have led me to believe that, largely because of proportional representation, which makes their position dependent on their place in the lists prepared by their parties, they have an arrogance towards public opinion that no British politician could afford to share. That is why there has been no full debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) mentioned Italy, and it is significant that even Italy is now realising the errors of its ways and may turn towards our system of electing Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Thomas Graham: May I suggest one scenario to the hon. Gentleman? I support the referendum and I will vote for it tonight. But I have had tremendous difficulty in following the Maastricht debate, and I have received only one letter on the subject since it all began—and that told me to support the referendum.
    The important factor is that I fully support the social chapter, and I sat here for two days waiting to speak in the debate on it, but was denied the chance to do so. If there were a referendum, the people of Scotland, and of Wales and of England, the working-class voters and the unemployed, would turn down the treaty if they did not get the right to include the social chapter. We must be sure that any referendum includes a reference to the social chapter.
    Mr. Fry: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not ask me to comment on the literacy of his constituents in comparison with the literacy of mine, but I have certainly had considerably more than one letter about Maastricht. The best way to obtain the answers to the questions that the hon. Gentleman wants to ask is to have a referendum.
    Mr. Salmond rose—
    Mr. Fry: Just a moment.
    The most important argument is summed up in the answer to one question: have we in the House the right to give away substantial parts of our national sovereignty without the agreement of the British people? That is the fundamental question which every hon. Member must ask himself.
    Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend could also ask whether, in aid of the parliamentary sovereignty to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) referred, we have the right to commit political suicide by handing over the whole system to the unaccountable, unelected central bankers, which will effectively prevent us from ever being able to reclaim the powers that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who led for the Opposition, claimed were irrevocable.
    Mr. Fry: My hon. Friend makes the point that I was about to make. It seems that we are being asked to agree to an irrevocable treaty. However, I was always led to believe that each House of Commons, while respecting the decisions of its predecessors, is able to speak and decide for itself and make its own decisions—something which some critics of Parliament have called the tyranny of Parliament because of our power to make fundamental changes.
    Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman will have realised that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), in his own inimitable fashion, was simply allowing him to develop the argument that the way to get the referendum and the social chapter is to ask for a vote on the new clause, as my colleagues and I are proposing.
    Mr Fry: If I were to respond in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman, I would reduce my enthusiasm to vote for the referendum. Therefore, I will decline that invitation.
    With this treaty, we are transferring more and more decision making and law making to an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels. The move to a single currency —we are committed at least to the first and second stages —will mean that the House will lose the fundamental control of taxation which I remind hon. Members was the main cause of the civil war of the 17th century. It goes to the fundamental duty of the House to control taxation and public expenditure.
    I suggest that we have increasingly seen our traditional way of life being affected, even down to whether we can serve cream and jam teas at village fetes. The intervention in our way of life will increase unless we stop the nonsense emanating from Brussels. I am worried that, by our adhering to the terms of the treaty without gaining the consent of the British people, that interference can only increase.
    Those of our countrymen who understand what is happening largely do not like it. At the very least, they are suspicious. If they are to be subjected to external rule, surely they have the right to be asked first.
    Parliament is supposed to be the protector of our national liberties and freedoms. It is supposed to provide the legal framework within which our people live. That is why—this is very important—when the voice of the electorate has been heard at a general election, the electorate accept the changes of policy that are caused by a change of Government. That is why we are remarkably free of civil disobedience and riotous disturbances in this country.
    We are a law-abiding nation because our people have trusted the law makers to act in the people's interest, not in the interests of the law makers. I accept that, in that, the Government are supposed to give a lead. The Government have to put forward policies. However, a wise Government do not live too far ahead or away from public agreement.
    In exchange for what is effectively a social contract, our citizens have overwhelmingly supported our system of government. We have not had a serious revolution since 1745 and that was fairly bloodless. In exchange for that, the liberties and freedoms of the people being protected by Parliament, the people have been prepared in successive wars to risk their homes, fortunes and their lives for Queen and country.
    Whether it was the thousands who were slaughtered in Flanders in the first world war, the few in the battle of
    434
    Britain or those who went to free the Falklands, those men and women offered their lives in defence either of our freedom or, in the case of the Falklands, the right of people to decide their own future. That is the fundamental point.
    In such circumstances, the people of this country allow us to exercise power on their behalf, knowing full well that they can get rid of us democratically at the next general election. I do not believe that they have given us in this Chamber any permanent right to do as we will with their liberties and freedoms. They have lent us this power on the understanding that he that giveth can taketh away if needs be. What worries me is that once we have given it away, we cannot take it back. Surely hon. Members should be asking themselves: can we vote to reduce foreign interference in or domination of our liberties and freedoms? Majority voting in the new system and handing power to the European Parliament and the Commission mean that we will simply be a smaller voice in a larger hole. The best that we can hope for is a series of muddy compromises. We do not get much muddier deals than those that are done in Brussels, considering the massive fraud of the common agricultural policy and, indeed, the extravagance of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
    11 pm
    How can we seriously keep faith with our people if we agree to the Maastricht treaty without giving them the opportunity to express their views? The right to vote was painfully won by the trade unionists, those who did not own property and the suffragettes. We do not have any right to reduce the value of what they painfully fought for over the years. Indeed, there is no point whatever in that struggle if we give away our sovereignty so easily.
    The fundamental question is: who has the sovereign power? Is it the electorate, representing the nation, or the Houses of Parliament? I believe that Parliament expresses the power of the people on their behalf and speaks in their name, not in our name.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend heard the sincere speech of our right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) about all hon. Members exercising—I think I have his phrase correct—their judgment on behalf of the people in the United Kingdom. I must ask my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) a question because, clearly, he is reaching the end of his speech. After what has happened. are we able to exercise our judgment? Has not the most despicable, deplorable and disgraceful pressure been brought to bear by the party establishment to force hon. Members to act against their better judgment, against what they have experienced and overwhelmingly against the interests of their electorates and voters? The House is not supposed to exercise its judgment on the individual experience of hon. Members. This whole matter is a fraud and a charade, and Parliament should be ashamed of itself. I hope that my hon. Friend will refer to this matter.
    Mr. Fry: I hope that my hon. Friend does not expect me to respond in the same animated way as he made his intervention. I admire him for not voting for any amendments tabled by the Government on the treaty. Tonight, I will vote for the new clause which, I hope, will bring about a referendum.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Can the hon. Gentleman think of a better example of the operation of an independent-minded Member for Parliament than the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)?
    Mr. Fry: No, I cannot.
    Sir Russell Johnston: According to the Government, he should be de-selected.
    Mr. Fry: I cannot think of a better example. The other 649 hon. Members are perhaps not so independent for a variety of motives, including loyalty.[Interruption.] The intervention of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has distracted me from my speech.
    Unfortunately, it is probably true that in the not-too-distant future this ancient parliamentary building will become the council chamber for the north-west region of Europe. It should become the council chamber because there has been a gradual evolution in the thinking of the British people. In reality, the idea of a European state commends itself to the majority of people on these islands. But it should not be imposed on them. They should have the right to say that they would rather wait and retain the sovereignty that we have now.
    As I said, hon. Members have to make up their minds. But I was not elected to the House to take part in such a scale of transfer of sovereignty as I believe that Maastricht will entail, and certainly not without the consent of the British people. The phrase "trust the people" was scoffed at by one hon. Member. I would rather turn it round the other way. If we cannot show that we trust the people, why should they trust us?
    Mr. Mike Watson: This has been a good debate and a full one. I have certainly enjoyed many of the speeches by hon. Members from various parties. It is entirely appropriate that we should discuss this fundamental issue not only in the context of Maastricht but for broader constitutional reasons. I believe that a referendum can be appropriate within the terms of our parliamentary democracy, depending on the issue that is to be decided.
    The Maastricht treaty and its ratification is self-evidently an issue on which a referendum is appropriate. I am not of the view that a referendum would threaten our system of representative democracy to any significant extent. One of the problems with those who argue along those lines, as some have this evening, is that they assume that because we are elected to Parliament for terms of four or five years, we have the power to exercise judgment on behalf of our electorate on every issue which arises, even those which arise after a general election and those on which we may not have any opportunity to sound out opinion in our constituencies.
    That brings me to a specific point about the debate on the referendum on the Maastricht treaty. It has been said before, but it bears repeating. There was no serious debate on Maastricht during the 1992 general election campaign or the period immediately before it. It could not have been the case. The treaty had not even been published in English by the time of the general election. So it could not have circulated or been discussed. It certainly was not discussed openly in the general election campaign.
    436
    It has also been said that all three major political parties came out in favour of ratification of the treaty. So anyone who wanted to express a different view was left with merely the possibility of abstention. That is hardly the way of advancing a representative democracy. So when we talk about representing people we have to be clear that we have a grasp of what their views are and what they think are the issues.
    My impression from my constituency and from talking to other hon. Members here is that the general public in Britain have a poor understanding of what is in the treaty, what it stands for, and what its effects could be. We all share the blame for that. We should have taken the debate out into the constituencies. Some of us have done that. It has been difficult, but it has not been done to a great enough extent.
    Mr. Rupert Allason: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, after a three-week campaign in which the issues could be debated on television and there could be many public meetings, the British public would he much better informed?
    Mr. Watson: Absolutely. I am convinced that they would be. I had the privilege of spending some three weeks in France last summer during the referendum campaign. Whatever one may say about how the issues became tied up with Mitterrand, economic policy and the decline of the socialist party, it was clear that the issues were put before the French people. The issues were debated every evening on television. There were public meetings in the smallest village halls.
    People got involved in that campaign. Whether they voted for or against the common agricultural policy or Mitterrand, people were informed and were able to make their decision on the Maastricht treaty on the basis of the information and the effects that it would be likely to have. Although I personally happened to be disappointed with the outcome, the referendum was a clear plus for representative democracy in France. We could benefit from a similar exercise in the United Kingdom.
    The question of threats to our representative democracy have to be tempered with considerations such as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned a few minutes ago. He said that pressure had been put on hon. Members on all aspects of the Maastricht treaty. If individual Members could arrive at their own decisions, the argument that a referendum would be a threat to our democracy would carry more weight. Of course, that is not the case—many of them are not permitted to do so, particularly Government Members, but also Opposition Members.
    Mr. Bill Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is always courteous to me—he is my pair. Does he agree that one of the problems in Scotland is that we fight a constitutional battle at every election? The constitutional issue is constantly at the top of the Scottish agenda at election time. One of the dangers faced by Parliament is that, if we do not give the Scottish people an opportunity to express a view on whether or not they want Maastricht —which they did not have at the general election—it could have fundamental implications for the unity of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman and I both know that the conduct of the official Labour party tonight will have considerable impact because the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and others will exploit it.
    Mr. Watson: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman links the issue in Scotland to the constitutional position. I do not believe that the 1992 general election gave anything other than a clear expression of the views of the Scottish people and what they want constitutionally. However, their wishes were denied by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in Government. Therefore, there is a clear case to be made for having a referendum in Scotland on the constitutional issue. My party and I are in favour of that, and as the hon. Gentleman is nodding vigorously I take it that he has now come round to that view, which I very much welcome.
    On the aspects of representative democracy, I was interested in one comment made by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) who is not now present. He said that if we had a referendum campaign and put the arguments to the people, the decision would be made at an appalling superficial level. That argument makes two assumptions. The first is that the people of this country would gain no understanding from the referendum campaign, which is not true; they would undoubtedly get hold of the issues. The second assumption is that most hon. Members understand the treaty, its implications and why they have been voting as they have for the past four or five months. I believe that only a minority of hon. Members have anything other than a flimsy grasp of the issues. But we are suggesting that the people could not pick up the issues—they are more intelligent than hon. Members give them credit for. We are prepared to take the people's views once every five years, but not more frequently. A referendum campaign would undoubtedly serve the valuable function of informing people.
    I am in favour of referendums on constitutional issues, and those held in this country have been on that basis. However, they have also—crucially—been about the transfer of power. That theme ran through the Northern Ireland referendum on the border issue in 1973, the membership of the European Community referendum in 1975—if anything was ever about the transfer of power, that referendum certainly was—and the Scottish and Welsh referendums which were about transferring power from Westminster to Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. It is also the issue dominating the Maastricht debate.
    I am passionately pro-European, but am concerned about the Maastricht treaty, particularly economic convergence, which is why I shall not support the treaty's ratification. The treaty involves the transfer of power and the loss of power, certainly in terms of economic and monetary policies. I believe that such fundamental issues will adversely affect my constituents, which is why I oppose ratification of the treaty.
    I am in favour of a referendum, which is a legitimate means of enhancing our democracy, not undermining it. I deplore the suggestion that those of us who support a referendum do so simply as a device to wreck the Maastricht treaty, which is not true. Hon. Members have stated their case today and some who are in favour of the treaty are also in favour of a referendum.
    To make a purely party-political point, the Labour party changed its policy in the early 1970s to one of support for a referendum during the term of the Government led by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). The Labour party position changed prior to the 1974 general election, and the party entered the election advocating a referendum.
    438
    11.15 pm
    The evidence is that it was a popular decision. People welcomed the opportunity of being consulted and having their opinions canvassed. As far as any polling evidence is available, the Labour party benefited and was successful in both the 1974 elections. It is popular with the people. Although they give us a certain amount of power as their representatives, people feel that they should have their say on crucial constitutional issues.
    I should like to refer to an issue that has been discussed earlier this evening—the interesting decision by the Scottish Trades Union Congress to change its position in favour of a referendum. It should be stated that that was not the only motion discussed today. I shall read out the motion which established that position. It states:
    "That this Congress appreciates the Constitutional importance of the Maastricht Treaty and therefore urges the Government to organise a referendum on the Treaty before a Parliamentary vote.
    Such a referendum should be the conclusion of a wide-ranging debate on the details of the Treaty and the further impact on the British and Scottish people."
    It is interesting in that it represents a change of position and reflects the mood of the times. In Scotland that would be in favour of a referendum on our constitutional settlement, so it would be inconsistent not to support a referendum on Maastricht.
    The motion also has to be set in the context of the STUC policy on the Maastricht treaty. I shall read out a paragraph of a motion which states:
    "Congress calls on the General Council to campaign against the terms of the Maastricht Treaty, to demand that the British Government immediately revokes its assent to the Treaty and to call for a referendum by which the British people can freely express their own will on this matter."
    That was an anti-Maastricht motion and it was overwhelmingly defeated this afternoon, shortly before the motion in favour of the referendum was carried.
    The STUC is not in favour of a referendum because it is against the treaty; it is in favour of ratification of the treaty yet still sees the benefit of a referendum so that the people of the United Kingdom can have their say. That reflects the need for people to be consulted. The people put their trust in us and we should have the confidence to put our trust in them on such a fundamental issue.
    Another matter that carries some weight was raised by the right hon. Member for Worthing. He said that we have already endorsed the Bill on Second Reading and it is likely to be further endorsed within this Parliament. He asked how that would sit with a decision of the people of the United Kingdom if they were to vote against it.
    Those of us who advocate a referendum are not doing so simply because we want to see the treaty wrecked. I do not know what the outcome would be. Thinking back to the 1975 referendum, there was certainly great imbalance in the way in which the arguments were presented. The media came down on one side as did many of the resources which industry and political parties were able to command. I suspect that it would be little different if we were to have a referendum on Maastricht and that in itself may prove sufficient to sway the decision.
    I do not know how it would turn out. I know how I would want it to turn out, but we cannot predict with any certainty because in many cases money brings power and influence and arguments become clearer if they are backed with sufficient resources.
    I do not see why a referendum would cut across our parliamentary democracy. We make decisions here as

    439
    Members of Parliament, but that does not stop us consulting people and saying, "This is what we think, what do you think?" If people say that they want something different, that does not necessarily mean mass resignations and the fall of the Government. We put our trust in the people and say, "This is our view, you can accept or reject it, but we shall let you decide". That is what democracy is about.
    Mr. John Carlisle: I have made very little contribution to these debates over the past few weeks, but I have been watching and listening to what has been going on. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on a most splendid speech. We expect of him the patriotism he showed, and it was appreciated by both sides of the Committee. During the past few weeks, some men and women here present have fought an historic battle against the biggest threat that the House has faced for many centuries. If we ratify this most awful treaty, our children and grandchildren will look back on the event in sorrow.
    We all admit that this subject has not caught the public's imagination, as judged by the number of letters they write, although those of us who have shown our dissent from the treaty have probably received more correspondence than others. It has also been remarkable to see, over these weeks, how those who have attended and spoken in our debates have, almost to a man and woman, been those who oppose the treaty. Those who vigorously support it have been conspicuous by their absence: they have rarely been here, with one or two notable exceptions.
    The trouble for the Government began when, after Second Reading, they took it for granted that all would be well. Having gained a massive majority last May on Second Reading, why did they not crack on with the Bill to ratify the treaty? The Prime Minister and Government told us that it was because the Government wanted to take stock and sound out opinions, and that there would be a paving debate in November when the House could express an opinion.
    When that paving debate arrived, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has described, the most disgraceful tactics were used to get people into the Lobby to support the Government. Right at the death, before the vote, some shoddy deals took place, across the Floor of the House as well as within our party. The tragedy of that evening was that the Government failed to realise that the warning shots that were fired, in a debate that would have no effect on the treaty, were expressions of real opinion. With the narrow margin of three votes, they decided to bully their way ahead and push the Bill through as fast as they could. That was a serious error of judgment, both by the Government and by the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Did not those shoddy deals include some by the Scottish National party, whose members are not even in the Chamber?
    Mr. Carlisle: I have never been and am never likely to be privy to the deals made between the occupants of the Front Benches, and I have no intention of ever sitting on the Front Bench—not that any Government would have any intention of putting me there. But certainly, ii the rumours are to be believed, shoddy deals were struck., and a great many people should be ashamed of the way they behaved.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Although the Scottish nationalists did engage in a dreadful deal, they have tried to redeem themselves tonight by offering the Labour party the chance of getting its glorious social chapter if its members will vote for amendment (a) to new clause 49 tonight. If the Opposition really care about the social chapter—I do not believe they do; it is a load of rubbish—they can have it tonight, so should they not be grateful to the Scottish nationalists for giving them this glorious chance?
    Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend rightly points out the divisions between the various opposition parties, but there are also divisions on our side. Many of us have been deeply hurt by the ministerial insults to which we have been subjected. During the summer, we were called naive and described as pigmies, yet all we were doing was reflecting the opinions of our constituents, and expressing, as is our right and duty, the fears felt by them and others.
    It ill befits a Government to take it upon themselves to insult their own Back Benchers, and it ill befits Ministers to refuse to go to various constituencies. Indeed, at our annual central conference, it was wrong for the chairman of the party to pick on individuals and to mount a vicious campaign to encourage constituents to turn against their Members. I remind the chairman that it is my party as well as his. I am sorry that he is not here to hear what has been said.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend note that our right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who was a most distinguished former chairman of the party, has described the whole process as shameful?
    Mr. Carlisle: Yes. It was interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who originally indicated his dissent, then said that he would support what he called this wretched little Bill and in the end supported the Government. The whole saga has brought out the worst in the Conservative party. At times, many of us were ashamed to be members of it.
    In the whole argument on the referendum, I cannot understand what everyone is so frightened about. Many hon. Members have said that we should trust the people, and that their opinion is worth having. As I told the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) during the Division at 10 o'clock, his speech was one of the most outstanding contributions that I have heard from the Opposition. He spoke much sense, in particular when he said that there was an arrogant feeling that the House always knows best and that the people do not know. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) said, had we had a referendum, the information which people thirsted after would have been available.
    Members of the Cabinet have admitted that they have not even read the treaty, yet they are pushing it through the House. Had there been a referendum early in the process, it would have provided a way out for the Government. They would have understood the deep-rooted feelings on this side of the House, which are expressed not just by those who have consistently, night after night, opposed the Government. To a certain extent, what sticks in our craw are those colleagues, many in ministerial office, who have gone through the Lobbies in support of the Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) said, with

    441
    clothespegs on their noses, because they do not like the treaty. Many have said to me, "Thank heaven there are those of you who are opposing it."
    That feeling is reflected outside the House. I respect the decision of those Ministers of the Crown, and I am glad that they are in government to reflect my view. Long may they stay there; but the day may come when they have to ask themselves why they stayed in office and did not follow their consciences, as the rest of us have done.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I was originally against the idea of a referendum when it was suggested by Baroness Thatcher. I thought that it would undermine parliamentary democracy and all that I had stood for in my 14 years here. I do not say now that I want a referendum, since in some people's eyes it might be because we were staring defeat in the face.
    This is the largest constitutional crisis to hit the House. Hon. Members have referred to how much things have changed since the treaty was signed. They may still change. The Danes have still to vote. The Germans are in the courts. The French have had an opinion poll since their referendum, with 60 to 70 per cent. saying that they wish they had voted against the treaty. So opinions have changed. The Government should have recognised that. To plough on willy-nilly, as they have done, totally disregarding the will of the people, is wrong.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I think that my hon. Friend is coming towards the end of his speech, but he has not yet directed his attention to one of the real failures of the debate. It is that, on most occasions, the Government, who are so keen on the treaty, have entirely failed to answer the debate. I have great respect for Ministers, but surely in such a debate, and especially in Committee, the Foreign Secretary, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Paymaster General or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have a duty to Parliament and through it to the people to respond, so that, at the end of the debate, people will at least know the Government's position.
    11.30 pm
    Mr. Carlisle: I agree with my hon. Friend. In speeches that I have heard, Ministers have spent the whole time defending what they say is not in the treaty. They have spoken about so-called misinterpretation by my hon. Friends who have picked up, line by line and comma by comma, the implications of—
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps we could hear a little about the referendum.
    Mr. Carlisle: I apologise, Mr. Lofthouse. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) diverted me.
    During debate in Committee, and as the argument, albeit low key, has raged throughout the country, so opposition to the treaty has hardened. The number of hon. Members voting against amendments and not supporting various new clauses has been consistent or has increased.
    I and some of my hon. Friends are a bit long in the tooth, but some younger hon. Members have been under great pressure. One would have thought that they would buckle, but opinion in this place and outside has remained
    442
    consistent. About 73 per cent. of people want a referendum and would vote no, and that percentage has remained consistent for months. That is why it is remarkable that the Government have chosen not to have a referendum.
    Those who are most keen on a referendum were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). They are the older people who fought in the war. Hon. Members have had many discussions in the houses of those who fought for their countries and came through the last world war and other wars. Those people cannot understand how their beloved House of Commons and their representatives are selling them down the river.
    Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Carlisle: Yes, because I have a certain affection for the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Graham: As I have said, I am in favour of a referendum for many reasons, but I shall not go into them in an intervention. Plainly, if people in Britain saw the social chapter included in the treaty, the Government's reputation might be improved a bit. As long as the social chapter is not included, people will see the Government as hoodwinking them. I am sure that hon. Members remember the campaigning in the run-up to the referendum in the 1970s. We were told, "When we join the Common Market, we will have bigger pensions and more jobs and holidays. We will do really well." I remember that campaign on the streets of Govan and Linwood. We were about to enter a bonanza land. Now those Ministers are telling us, "That is not on. It is too costly."
    Mr. Carlisle: I shall not be drawn on the social chapter. My affection for the hon. Gentleman may lessen, and in future I may buy him singles rather than doubles. However, I am grateful to him for his intervention.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) drew attention to one of the most helpful remarks in the debate. It was made by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who said that nothing was irrevocable. The right hon. Gentleman, who is not here to defend himself, has either not read the treaty or has not fully understood its implications. The tragedy of the whole process is that, once we pass the Bill and ratify the treaty, there is no going back even if decisions were wrong. A referendum would enable us to hold back and say, "No, we are not happy with the way things are." I fear that, in this case, it is not the British House of Commons. Governments cannot come back and overturn decisions. That power has gone, and gone for ever.
    The second point concerns the myth that is put about —I regret to say, by some of my hon. Friends—that we should pass the Bill because the treaty will never happen. That is the most spurious and defeatist of arguments.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: And dishonest.
    Mr. Carlisle: It is dishonest. If we work on the theory that we should pass legislation, or, in this case, ratify a treaty because we think that it will not in the end affect us, we are all wasting our time. Many hon. Members have used that theory as an excuse not to join us in opposing the treaty. The people must have, and should be given, the

    443
    chance to express their opinion, which I know would reflect that held by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who oppose this wretched treaty.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: The speech of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) showed yet again—it has been a feature of almost every speech from a Conservative Member, not just in tonight's debate but in almost every debate that we have had on any aspect of the Bill—the private horrors in the Conservative party, with pressure being put on Back Benchers, and all the rest of it. We appreciate that the Government must try to get their way, but the referendum issue has a distinct nature, quite separate from trying to change this or that part of the Bill, or to put in the social chapter rather than leave it out. Therefore, if there were one issue on which it would have made eminently good sense for the Government and, for that matter, the Labour party simply to have a free vote to find out the sentiment of the House, it was a referendum.
    When my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats first mentioned his preference for a referendum some months ago, it was made clear then, and I make it clear now, that it causes us no difficulty that there are differences within the party. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who has been most active during the debates on the Bill, will assuredly vote against the new clause that is aimed at introducing a referendum. I have worked with him throughout the proceedings on the Bill, and I shall be voting for a referendum. That makes no difference, given that we share an identical view—that Maastricht should be ratified and built on along lines that would not find favour with any of the Euro-sceptics on either side of the House, as we should like Europe to go in a more federal direction. We feel that we can hold that view while having open and honest differences about whether the British people should be consulted on the Bill.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, with such an astonishing record of consistency, with such defence of fair and democractic principles, with such courage, the Liberals should be interested in having their peformance brought out in the prime-time debates rather than carrying the whole thing through at dead of night, as they conspired to do by voting with the Government on the 10 o'clock motion?
    Mr. Kennedy: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. We were anxious that today should be a clean debate on the referendum in prime time, and I regret that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) scuppered today's proceedings by tabling a motion attacking the Chairman of Ways and Means and taking up three hours of our time in a debate on that. If there are criticisms, they should be directed towards the right hon. Gentleman, not towards the Liberal Democrats.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I ask this question because I genuinely want information. The rumour around the tea rooms and corridors is that the Liberals are split on the issue. Is the hon. Gentleman carrying the whole of his party with him in what he is saying?
    Mr. Kennedy: Given that intervention, I am beginning to feel some sympathy for Ministers who have been trying to get their message across to the furthest reaches of the Back Benches. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record
    444
    tomorrow, he will see that I began by saying that there should be a free vote, and that there are different views among Liberal Democrats. I cited the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber who holds views on the referendum that are the opposite of mine.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Kennedy: The night would not be complete without the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman wonder how hon. Members who represent Scotland and who regularly advocate referendums on matters affecting Scottish constitutional issues can tell their constituents that they could not support a referendum on the treaty? The hon. Gentleman approves of it—I do not—but he must recognise that it has massive constitutional implications. Does he think that it makes any sense for those hon. Members to tell their constituents that they will not support a call for a referendum on the treaty, when they constantly call for a referendum on Scotland?
    Mr. Kennedy: That is somewhat off the point, but I am in favour of referendums on Scotland and on Maastricht. One could argue that the nature of the treaty, which involves other powers and other countries, albeit within the EC, means that a referendum on it would be of a different nature from one that would pertain only to our constitutional arrangements. I would not argue for such a distinction, but I appreciate that it could be made.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Kennedy: Yes, but I must then make progress.
    Mr. Winterton: I genuinely like the hon. Gentleman, although I disagree with his views. On this issue, however, we are as one in our support of a referendum on the treaty. Does he accept, however, that he was unfair on the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) when he said that that right hon. Gentleman had wasted more than three hours of our time? Tomorrow has also been allocated for further progress on the Bill, when we will merely debate issues on which both sides of the Committee appear to be united. Why should we proceed after 10 o'clock to debate a matter that could be debated tomorrow? If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had supported those of us who opposed the lifting of the 10 o'clock rule, perhaps we would have got what we all desired.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his complimentary opening comments. We are not privy or party to what the hon. Gentleman's business managers and Whips decide about certain amendments. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) spoke about deals, but my party has not been party to any. We cannot plan on the basis of possible Government action; that is a matter for them.
    It is clear from the debates that have taken place in the Chamber and outside throughout this whole drawn-out process that the social dimensions of the treaty remain profound and politically charged. Whether the Government are attempting to weave, take the sting out or avoid defeat tomorrow, it is important that the debates on those dimensions are rehearsed then, especially if one subscribes to the view held by the hon. Member for

    445
    Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and many of his hon. Friends about the importance of our forum as the cockpit of the nation. Those debates should take place whether or not the Government have staged a tactical retreat in advance.
    The precedent for a referendum on constitutional issues has been established in all four parts of the United Kingdom. Other countries have also held referendums in the course of ratifying Maastricht. I share the hostility that is expressed when we are told that the issues are too complex for the people to understand. That is an awful slippery slope and the thin end of the wedge. Our people have a good democratic track record based on constitutional history and I cannot believe that they would not understand the arguments if they were thrashed out in a referendum campaign, especially when the people of Denmark, Ireland and France were capable of doing so. When people say that it is all too complicated for the typical citizen and the average voter, that reveals more of the arrogance of those who make the assertion than the intelligence of the voters to whom the proposition is being put.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: The answer is, as President Mitterrand said, that the people will answer the wrong question, not that the question is too complex. They will answer the wrong question because the response will reflect the view of the Government of the day. The French referendum was about the standing or otherwise of President Mitterrand, views on immigration and views on agriculture—issues which were all unrelated to the Maastricht treaty. I took part in the French referendum and I know that Maastricht played a small part in the decision of the French people. That is the danger of referendums, not the complexity of the issue.
    11.45 pm
    Mr. Kennedy: Any Member sitting on the Opposition Benches, irrespective of the party that he represents, probably thought just over a year ago, "The damned people of this country made the wrong decision." How inconvenient and troublesome it was for us, but in their wisdom that was the decision that they took. I revert to the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument: if anyone fears that the people will answer the wrong question, or answer the right question but not give the answer that is wanted, which is another way of putting the same thing, he is embarking on a dangerous road.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Kennedy: I shall happily give way to, perhaps, my former hon. Friend.
    Sir Russell Johnston: My hon. Friend has suggested that those who are opposed to referendums might be arrogant. He referred to the referendum in Denmark and asked why there could not be one in the United Kingdom. Does he recall that it was established after the referendum in Denmark that about two weeks before it took place about 28 per cent. of the Danish population had never heard of Maastricht?
    Mr. Kennedy: Those of us who have sat through the night over the past few months considering the Maastricht treaty might think that the 28 per cent. were blessed. I
    446
    would say to my hon. Friend, or my party colleague, which is how I would describe him in this instance, that in the United Kingdom the arguments have been pretty well thrashed out when referendums have taken place in the past. The media—especially the television medium—have performed a valuable role in giving a considerable amount of coverage to referendums. I should like to think that the percentage of those in the United Kingdom who had not heard about Maastricht would be considerably smaller than in Denmark.
    I must make that the last intervention because I want to—
    Sir Terence Higgins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Kennedy: No, I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I have given way to him already. I must move on.
    Maastricht is a constitutional issue. I have much sympathy with the so-called Euro-sceptics as they have dissected the various aspects of the treaty. They have examined citizenship, the meaning of a European union, the provision of a central bank and the longer-term development of a single currency, which are all issues of massive constitutional import for the United Kingdom. It is the Government Front Bench that has bedevilled the entire process. There are those who have told the truth as they see it. They have expressed their views honestly and openly as they see them. I should like to think that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have done so. On many occasions we have been in the minority, but we have talked about the way in which we would like to see Europe develop.
    I acknowledge that many of those who are dead against Maastricht, along with many other features of the European experiment or construction, have also spoken honestly. Unfortunately, the Government have not spoken out firmly and consistently for what they want from Maastricht. They have not set out their long-term vision because they have been trying to appeal to two irreconcilable audiences—those who are in the vanguard, as it were, of European development, who want to see Britain's future firmly enmeshed and integrated in the rest of Europe, and those who are not.
    For as long as the House of Commons and the country generally suffer from that vacillation—the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and their ministerial colleagues have been trying to square the circle —we shall not be able to say that we have distinguished ourselves with a sufficiently honest or open debate on an important treaty. That is one of the reasons—in regard to Maastricht itself—that lead me to believe that we should secure a more open and honest debate if that debate were thrashed out up and down the land.
    I subscribe to some of the criticisms that we have heard tonight and on other occasions. It has been pointed out, for example, that we have had to sit late into the night; certainly we have used our votes to facilitate that, because we want the treaty to be ratified. I should like to think, however, that if a message has emerged from the way in which this extremely important matter has been handled by the House of Commons, it relates to the overwhelming case for reforming our own procedures.
    It is high time that we started sitting in the mornings, sitting earlier and more constructively in the afternoons and using prime time in the sense that that is recognised by

    447
    people outside—that is, normal working hours. The public should see major decisions being made—big votes being taken—early in the evening, perhaps after a day's debate. I should like to think that a referendum campaign could be broadened to cover more than Maastricht itself, and to deal with what the handling of the treaty has revealed about the mechanisms of the House of Commons.
    There is, without doubt, a sense that the politicians are out of step with the electorates. We have seen that in the United States, with the phenomenon of Ross Perot's taking nearly 20 per cent. of the vote; we have seen it on the continent, where people are turning increasingly to right-wing leaders of a rather unpleasant variety. It may be the result of the recession; it may be because the political classes have been seen to be talking about Maastricht in what is all too often an exclusive way, not including the public. That is a dangerous position to get into in any individual democracy. It is particularly dangerous when we are trying to weld together a complicated European Community, leading on to a European union that is, itself, a hybrid or mosaic composed of a number of democracies with different traditions and attitudes.
    I believe that a referendum at this stage would be a useful way of forcing all of us to go out and explain to our electorate, in as much detail as we can, what the treaty is about and our individual attitudes to it. We might find at the end of such an exercise that there was less distance between this place as an establishment and the country as a whole, and I believe that that would be healthy for democracy itself.
    My final point has already been raised by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). He said that, at the end of the day, he did not believe that a referendum would solve the issue, just as Harold Wilson's referendum in the mid-1970s on the renegotiated terms of the Common Market did not resolve that issue. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is right; I hope that a referendum would not resolve the issue. The whole point of a referendum is
    448
    that—like a general election—it provides a snapshot of public opinion on a particular day. It does not show the whole film; it shows one frame out of the reel. In any democracy, the campaigns and debates of both sides will go on. They will not end when the ballot boxes have closed on a particular day of a particular month in a particular year. When the treaty has been ratified—as I hope that it will be—there will be another intergovernmental conference in 1996, and decisions will flow from that. There will be more heated arguments in the House.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: There will be another referendum.
    Mr. Kennedy: Whatever the Government of the day, if it comes to a proposal for a single currency, for instance, the House of Commons might well decide on a referendum. Why not? We, as democratically elected Members of Parliament, are obliged to renew our mandate every four or five years; equally, when the very basis of our parliamentary democracy is involved, I see no logical reason for us not to try to renew our mandate for Britain's continued involvement in Europe—and for the deepening of that involvement in a more federal direction, which I should like to see.
    Although at times our proceedings have been neither neat nor elegant—we have not distinguished ourselves in our handling of the treaty so far—we can go a long way towards improving our reputation by putting the question to the people. I do not believe that we have anything to fear. Despite the strong sentiments expressed here and the reservations expressed outside, I am confident that a vigorous referendum campaign on the Maastricht treaty—which would oblige party leaders and others to line up, broadly speaking, in its favour—would produce a yes vote. That would lead to the authority of the House being strengthened and to the role of this country in Europe being strengthened, too.
    Mr. Hurd: Tonight's argument is full of echoes from the past. It started many years ago. In 1972, Parliament passed the European Communities Act. Thus, 20 years ago Parliament enabled the Government of the day to ratify British accession to the treaty of Rome. We thereby then, in 1972, committed ourselves to the defined aim of that treaty—the ever closer union of peoples. We thereby then, in 1972, agreed a system of European lawmaking which we have practised ever since as members of the Community.
    When I listen to and read the report of the debates in this Committee, I am struck over and over again—and yet again tonight—by the way in which criticism centres not so much on the treaty of Maastricht as on those two aspects of the treaty of accession. It centres not on the proposals of 1992 but on the decision of 1972. That came through very clearly when I listened to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry).
    When I put that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), he partially accepted it. It was in 1972 that the House faced, and resolved, this fundamental question of the relationship between its powers and British membership of the Community. As I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills when, in an eloquent and remarkable speech, he moved the new clause, the echoes were very clear. The arguments, almost the words, were those used by another eloquent and remarkable parliamentary orator, the former Member of Parliament for South Down. The echoes were unmistakable.
    Mr. Benn: The point that the right hon. Gentleman makes confirms everything that we say: that in 1972 there was no popular consent. The argument was never presented to the public. The decision was imposed by the Government—whether he was a member of it I cannot remember—on the House of Commons against the wishes of the then Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman is right: the Government have never won public support for that transfer of power. Even in 1975 it was a bit too late, but even after the 1975 referendum there remains deep public hostility, because those who advocate a federal Europe have never had the guts to tell the public what it is really about.
    Mr. Hurd: But the referendum that the right hon. Gentleman proposes would not alter that situation one whit. It would leave all the apparatus of the treaty of Rome, the treaty of accession, the 1972 Act and the Single European Act in place. That is exactly the point that I was beginning to make.
    Three years later, in 1975, the Government who were then in power—the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) knows more about this than most of us—were divided on this issue and solved this critical internal problem by proposing a referendum. The Conservative party had to define its attitude. Its leaders knew that the motives of the Government of the day were not reputable. They were concerned to keep themselves in office, papering over this division over a central part of their policy.
    If there were ever a case for holding a referendum on Europe, that case was stronger at the time of entry than it has ever been since, yet when the Conservative party in opposition in 1975 had to define its position it came out against a referendum, and it was right to do so. The
    450
    reasons were spelt out on 11 March of that year by the leader of the party. It was her first major parliamentary speech as Leader of the Opposition. I joined almost all of my party, including many right hon. and hon. Friends here today, and went into the Lobby to vote against the holding of a referendum on our membership of the Community.
    It is worth looking up that speech. It was a remarkable speech which took into account both sides of the argument. She pointed out that the 1975 referendum was not a principled constitutional innovation, as I have said. It was a device, but that did not dispose of the argument. There was a general constitutional argument which also had to be considered. She dwelt—and we need to dwell tonight—on the nature of our parliamentary tradition, and many hon. Members on both sides of the argument have done so.
    12 midnight
    I do not believe that our parliamentary tradition has failed, as has been suggested, to cope with the problem since 1972. With the Danes and the Folketing, we have the most highly developed system for the scrutiny of Community legislation. Our Prime Minister was the only leader to go to the Maastricht conference with a specific authority from his Parliament, which was then met in full.
    It is worth running through the sequence of events to show how the parliamentary system has worked in this respect. On 20 and 21 November 1991, before my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to Maastricht, the House of Commons was asked to approve a motion endorsing his negotiating position and did so by a majority of 101. That was not necessary and probably not even usual before such a conference and negotiation. It was a precaution because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was anxious at all stages to carry the House—the previous Parliament—with him.
    On 18 and 19 December, immediately after Maastricht, the House of Commons was asked to approve the outcome of the negotiation and did so by a majority of 86. In May last year, after the election, the present Parliament was asked to grant a Second Reading to the Bill, necessary for the ratification of the treaty, and did so by a majority of 244.
    This is not an idle or atrophied system. It is parliamentary democracy at work, complete with imperfections—I agree with the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy)—untidiness and arguments about procedure and when we should discuss this or that point. I do not give great weight to the argument that this was done blindfold because it took time to achieve and circulate an authentic full text of the treaty. Of course, it was not done blindfold. Parliament knew what was happening. Those who took part in the discussion at the general election knew what the treaty involved, and the blindfold argument does not stand up in real life.
    Mr. Cash rose—
    Mr. Hurd: May I just pursue this sequence of events?
    Of course there was not a clash between the parties—there was a difference of emphasis—but I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). I do not like to toss around the word "arrogant", which has been tossed around, but his speech was a rather patronising lecture on the nature of parliamentary responsibilities. As I said when he was kind enough to give

    451
    way, I reject entirely the suggestion that there was a conspiracy to keep the silence on this matter, either in the general election or beyond. Personally, I can testify how often I tried to include in that campaign the speeches and broadcasts on the subject—admittedly for party political reasons, as I wanted to bring out the nuances between the parties. However, it was not possible to do so because, from the media's point of view, it was not a great issue.
    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend recall that he advocated a White Paper during the leadership election campaign? Will he explain why we had no White Paper? Since Second Reading and our withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism, and in the light of the Danish referendum, how can we give the same credibility to the Second Reading that we might have done in May last year? Does he agree that the circumstances have changed radically, as result of which we deserve a referendum?
    Mr. Hurd: We had a White Paper on events in the Community, but as I recall it was made particular by a foreword by the Prime Minister. Of course events move on. I accept what my hon. Friend says about that. There were the Danish referendum and the events of 16 September, but the treaty is the same treaty. I do not accept my hon. Friend's analysis of the ERM. There have been many discussions about that in the Committee. and I do not accept that what happened revolutionised the situation in the way that my hon. Friend described.
    I make this point gently, but it is odd that those who would put most emphasis on the sovereignty of the House believe that it needs to be buttressed, to put it mildly—I would say that it would be weakened—by recourse to a referendum on the matter before us.
    I share the opinion of those who think that if there were a campaign a referendum would endorse the treaty. I cannot prove it, but I think it likely that once the phantasms were effectively swept away, that would probably be the result. We certainly are not taking our present line because of fear of a negative result.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: I ask my right hon. Friend one question: does he believe that the majority of Conservative voters are in favour of the treaty on European union?
    Mr. Hurd: I cannot prove it scientifically to my hon. Friend, but I believe that the answer is yes.
    As Parliament is sovereign—
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Hurd: I shall get on a bit, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend, as I believe that I always have done.
    As Parliament is sovereign, it is clear that it could decide to hold a referendum, which it could either accept or reject. It could certainly choose, as it has before, to ask for advice from those who sent us here. But I return to the fact that we owe our constituents our judgment, and if we decline to exercise that judgment we are to some extent damaging the authority of Parliament.
    Many people can be quoted on both sides of the argument. One of those is certainly Winston Churchill. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) referred to him. When the point came up in 1911 Churchill said:
    "We believe in democracy, we believe in representative institutions, we believe in democracy acting through representative institutions … We believe Members of
    452
    Parliament are representatives, not delegates. We believe that Governments are the guides as well as the servants of the Nation."
    I readily acknowledge that Churchill can also be quoted on the other side of the argument, but when he held the opposite view in 1945 the normal constitutional procedures were in suspense, as my hon. Friend would agree.
    My right hon. Friend the Baroness Thatcher quoted Dicey in her speech in 1975, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said, Dicey too, went through a flip-flop. He was against referendums in one edition and in favour of them in another, when he passionately opposed home rule. Then he reverted to wisdom in what I believe was his final edition, and he was against referendums again. One could now also quote my right hon. Friend the Baroness Thatcher on both sides of the argument, but it might be prudent to resist the temptation to do so.
    Mr. Budgen: May I refer my right hon. Friend back to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) asked him about the balance of opinion within the Conservative party? Judging by his own local party, does he agree that it is probable that about half the Conservative party in the country opposed the treaty? Yet out of a parliamentary party of 335 Members, only 26 oppose the treaty—between 8 and 9 per cent. Does that not show that, as a result of the pressures on the parliamentary party, we in that party do not even begin to represent the balance of opinion in the party outside?
    Mr. Hurd: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)—and I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has buttressed the argument—there is no scientific measure.
    Like the Labour party, the Conservative party has a party conference. We had a trot around this course at the last party conference. We had a very lively debate in which I and others had the privilege to take part. We had a vote at the end of that debate and the result was very satisfactory from my point of view. That was after the Danish referendum and after the events of 16 September. That was the Conservative party in full plenary conference, expressing its views very substantially and clearly on that particular issue. We do not have quite the same rigid views about our party conferences as the Labour party, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East is provoking me into making constitutional doctrine in this matter.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills was absolutely right. The 1975 referendum is not the only referendum that has been held. However, it is not fair to go on to argue, as my hon. Friend did, being a little economical with history, that the referendum has become a normal part of our constitutional practice.
    The strongest point in the armoury of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills was the Northern Ireland border poll. I accept that. It is the only example of a referendum being put into practice by a Conservative Government. Others have been toyed with for different reasons by leaders of the Conservative party, but they were not actually activated. In that, as in many respects, Northern Ireland is unique in the politics of the kingdom.

    453
    An act of self-determination solely for the people of the Province was, and remains as it is still on the statute book, a reasonable technique.
    I want now to consider the proposal for a referendum on this subject. We have contended throughout the debate that the treaty does not mark a fundamental constitutional shift. When we joined the European Community we joined a body with both an economic and a political dimension. If we read through the debates in 1972, through the literature of 1975 and through the document that the leader of my party sent to party activists during the 1975 campaign, the political and economic arguments for remaining in the Community are clear.
    The doctrine of the primacy of Community law that lies at the heart of so many understandable criticisms about the nature of the Community is a doctrine of 1972, not of the treaty of Maastricht.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Is not that argument fortified by the 1975 referendum which surely cannot have been a decision on a Europe that was static and which would remain fossilised in the 1975 position? Inherent in that popular vote in 1975 was a vote for the dynamic Europe that would evolve.
    Mr. Hurd: That is right. However, the hon. Gentleman's point begs the question of in which direction it should evolve and I will consider that in a minute.
    The use of qualified majority voting is perhaps a test. It was not invented in the treaty of Maastricht. It is in the treaty of Rome. It received its greatest extension in the Single European Act. There was no referendum on that and precious little call for one.
    The treaty of Maastricht adds to and, in some helpful ways, redefines and corrects the Single European Act and, I believe, is on the whole less constitutionally innovative than that Act. We have discussed subsidiarity and I will not repeat those arguments. Whether or not people believe that it is a weak or strong buttress, it is certainly an advance on the present position from the point of view of most hon. Members. That is an example of the point that I am trying to make.
    Of course the treaty provides for the three stages of economic and monetary union. I deal with that point because many hon. Members have stressed it. In respect of the third stage of economic and monetary union, the only stage where compulsion comes into it, the Government have specifically and successfully reserved the decision for the House of Commons.
    I will not go through all the details, but in other respects with regard to the treaty we have advanced our arguments and analyses. In the big new areas of European work, for the first time the principle of ever-closer union to which we have been committed since 1972 is defined in the treaty of Maastricht as co-operation between national Governments accountable to national Parliaments. It need not have been so. I mentioned that there was a Dutch draft in September which swept away that concept and put all European work under the court with the Commission having the monopoly initiative. We rejected that. The treaty that is before us is on a different basis.
    12.15 am
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the treaty of union requires the whole to be under a single institutional structure, even allowing for intergovernmental matters? Does he agree that the intergovernmental mode, of which he and the Prime Minister have made great play, will be inevitably interlarded in meetings of various Ministers, including the Foreign Secretary, in the general council? Therefore, the two in practice, as distinct from law, will become increasingly indistinguishable.
    Mr. Hurd: The single framework of which the hon. Gentleman speaks includes intergovernmental cooperation. That co-operation was not included before: it was always the Community. The question was: how far should the Community's jurisdiction and activity extend? We now have a new structure under the Council of Ministers—the heads of state and Government—but not under the Commission. We have a different structure which includes, for the first time, the two new pillars. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is the difference.
    The House has the right and the capacity under our system to approve the treaty if it decides to do so. Other countries have referendums. Nine member states have proceeded through the parliamentary process and three have proceeded through the referendum technique. Having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and others, there is one point that I must stress because it is a difference between now and 1975. The treaty of Maastricht is not a take it or leave it matter as far as the Government are concerned. It cannot be detached from the rest of the Government's programme. I do not know what Lord Wilson's Government would have done if the vote had been no. I do not know how on earth it would have managed to take out of its policies something which even then was clearly central. I do not know how it would have wrestled with that.
    Ratification of the treaty lies at the heart of our national interest: it is not an optional extra. We have made that point in the House at the cost of some crtiticism and discomfort. Governments are elected to govern and, in this case, to propose, just as Parliaments in the United Kingdom are elected to decide and, indeed, to dispose.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham made a critique which was much fairer and more balanced than that of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). [Interruption.] It is not "Oh, dear". I have noticed the way in which the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham have evolved with the passage of time since the days 20 years ago—[Interruption.] I am embarrassing him so I will leave that train of thought—but it is true.
    One point made by my hon. Friend was true—my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough also referred to this. It is true that a good many of those who have consistently argued in favour of a steadily centralising Europe have not abandoned that belief. They will continue to argue for it. They have received—and they know it—not a rout or total reversal but a check in the way in which the Maastricht treaty came out, compared with the Dutch draft which I mentioned. They will live to argue again.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough referred to Chancellor Kohl. Chancellor Kohl specifically rejects the notion of a super-state and specifically endorses

    455
    and emphasises the notion of subsidiarity. He uses phrases about a united Europe, just as Winston Churchill did. His question is: how is that defined?
    I must quarrel with the point made by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye. I cannot accept that the Prime Minister and other hon. Members on the Government Front Bench have failed to set out the sort of Europe that they want. Time and again in the House and outside, we have said that we believe in a Europe which is enlarged beyond its present membership of 12, open trading and decentralising and which uses, makes a success of and keeps distinct the intergovernmental pillars in the treaty. We have set out the idea time and again. It can be realised only on the basis of the treaty. It certainly cannot be realised by tearing up the treaty. But on that basis I believe that once the treaty is ratified we can go ahead and play an increasingly influential part in achieving that type of Europe. That is certainly the aim of the Government.
    Let us consider what would happen if the series of new clauses were passed. I shall not dwell on what would have to happen immediately. There would have to be legislation. We would have to spend many hours, days, even weeks, working out the question, the date and how the various organisations would be financed. We would spend many more days not on substance but on procedure. I am not sure that that is what is expected of us.
    Of course, all that work would be justified if my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills were right and we proposed constitutional revolution and destruction. I hope that I have demonstrated that the treaty does not represent that.
    Mr. Graham: We have seen the House divided and many hon. Members have argued furiously about the rights and wrongs of Maastricht. We have spent months and months on it while unemployment has increased, factories have been closed, and people have died because they could not afford to live in this country. Surely if we had a referendum in three weeks it would be clear whether the people of Britain supported the Maastricht treaty or not. We could get on with normal living and hopefully make Europe a better place to live in. We cannot come to a final decision because the House is divided. So why not leave it to the supreme power in Britain—a referendum of the people?
    Mr. Hurd: It is odd for a Member of Parliament, even the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), to suggest that, because Parliament is divided and different views are strongly expressed, we should avoid or transfer the decision. That is an odd doctrine. Few major propositions in the House are not divisive in the sense that people argue about them strongly within and between parties. That is not normally regarded as an argument for refusing to take a decision on an issue when so much work has gone into its discussion.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Hurd: I wish to get on, if I may.
    It is sometimes said that we have put the decision into the hands of the Danes. That is completely erroneous. The decision for Britain lies where it belongs—in the hands of the British Parliament. We are preparing, in an admittedly untidy, imperfect but I think lively way, for that decision with a thoroughness of parliamentary debate.
    456
    I want to deal with the nature of the debate. We need not be ashamed of it. The press has been much keener to report manoeuvres and excitements outside the Chamber than what has been said inside the Chamber. I have taken part admittedly in only two of the debates in the Committee. I suppose that they were two of the more interesting debates—on subsidiarity and on the common foreign and security policy. I have read the others.
    Obviously, I believe that those of us who put our case on the two matters which I have mentioned, and on others, had the better of it. I believe that we showed that subsidiarity was a real concept and demonstrated the helpfulness of the common foreign and security policy based on co-operation. But I am sure that some right hon. and hon. Members who were critical of those parts of the treaty felt that they had the best of it. But no one who sat through at any rate those two debates—and I believe that the same is true of others which I have read—can deny that the debates were of high quality and that the informal coming and going of the Committee stage enabled it to be of high quality.
    Ministers and, indeed, critics were exposed to a coming and going of discussion which I thought was considerably better than the reports of it allowed. The House was doing its job. The House is doing its job. It is preparing for the final decision which it will take on Third Reading.
    Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Does my right hon. Friend think that the quality of our debates was enhanced by the virtually indiscriminate use of the closure? On occasions Front-Bench spokesmen, and in the case of the citizenship debate the Home Secretary himself, did not even answer the questions and points that were put in the debate.
    Mr. Hurd: I think that, as always, many criticisms could be made about the way in which our debates have been conducted, but I do not think that one of them could be that the Committee has hustled through debates on the Bill. I do not think that that would be the general view of those who have assisted in the votes and I do not think that the accusation of undue speed could accurately be levelled. Ministers have done their job of replying to the points made in the debate.
    It would be wrong and foolish to abandon or transfer the work. It would be a shirking of the responsibilities that we were given only a year ago, and it would be a blow to the standing of the House in years to come. We would be saying to our constituents, "We have examined the matter, but we do not intend to take a decision. We have spent hours, days and weeks examining the issues and now it is over to you. We are going to throw the treaty, with all its diverse controversies and complications, into your laps to make of it what you will." I agree with the principles set out by Lady Thatcher in 1975. It cannot be right to refuse to do our job, so it cannot be right to accept the new clauses.
    Mr. George Robertson: Unusually for a debate in this Committee, I am seeking to catch your eye, Dame Janet, in order to participate. I say "unusually" because on only one previous occasion has a member of the Opposition Front Bench chosen to participate at the end of a debate as well as at the beginning. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made only brief introductory comments, and many comments have been made by other hon. Members, so it is right and proper

    457
    that, as a member of the Opposition Front-Bench team which has come in for some attention during the debate, I should respond to some of the issues that have been raised in the interesting, wide-ranging and varied debate.
    The issue is important for the Committee, which is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland made the Labour party's position clear today. Our position should come as no surprise, as it was not adopted for the convenience of today or this stage of the Committee's debates. It was adopted after considerable consultation, and was finally decided on at the annual Labour party conference last October by an overwhelming majority.
    In order to get the matter out of the way, I should first like to deal with the issues raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on behalf of the Scottish National party. If what I have to say seems arcane to hon. Members from south of the border, they should listen carefully. During the past few weeks only, the Scottish National party has been campaigning for a vote on the referendum and for the Labour party to join SNP Members in the Division Lobby to defeat the Government. The SNP has been advancing that argument on the basis of a thesis that to do so, and to defeat the Government and approve new clause 49, would bring down the Government—or, at the very least, force the resignation of the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman said that we would never be forgiven by the Scottish people for voting with the Government to keep the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) in his position as Prime Minister.
    It is on that basis that the Scottish National party has created its argument in the past few weeks. What evidence does that party have that, faced with the prospect of defeat this evening, the Foreign Secretary would say that it was a resigning matter for either him or the Prime Minister? I do not believe that they would resign. We know from experience what happened on the occasion when, in Committee, the Government were foolish enough to put a proposition to the vote and were defeated on the issue of the Committee of the Regions. I understand that the Foreign Secretary was out of the country at the time, and the Government were not forced to a humiliating defeat on his advice. Whatever happened, they learned their lesson, and on three subsequent occasions, facing defeat, they simply accepted our amendments. Ministers would have to accept the will of the House. If there were a referendum, they would have to ask the Scottish National party and its leader to help them in the campaign for the Maastricht treaty. That would be the effect.
    There is no evidence to suggest that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or anyone of note in the Government would resign if Parliament decided on a referendum, yet we are being told that it is critical and crucial and that the Government hang by a thread this evening, relying for their survival and the Prime Minister's future only on the votes of Labour Members.
    Mr. Austin MitchellWill my hon. Friend give way?
    12.30 am
    Mr. Robertson: Let me finish explaining the position.
    We are then told that the Labour party and the SNP would not have to campaign with the Government for a
    458
    Maastricht treaty that did not include the social chapter, because the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has produced amendment (a) to new clause 49.
    I have to tell right hon. and hon. Members who have just come in, and who may well be at their first debate of the Committee, that amendment (a) to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan gave so much attention this evening, the critical point that he says obliges the Labour party to vote for the referendum, was tabled last Thursday. However, the SNP has tabled its own new clause calling for a referendum.
    I concede that the idea of a referendum is not a new SNP policy, because it tabled its own new clause 48, which does not contain any reference to the social chapter. It was not tabled last Thursday or starred this Monday; it was tabled on 2 December 1992, 19 weeks ago.
    For 18½weeks, the SNP has been campaigning for a referendum without any questions on the social chapter, a referendum on a treaty that specifically excludes Britain from the social chapter. However, last Thursday, SNP Members decided, realised or woke up to the fact that they could do something that could give them a momentary advantage. Why would they look for advantage? Why would the SNP want to criticise the Labour party for voting with the Government? They want to get off the hook.
    This elaborate, noisy smokescreen has been put up for only one reason—to cover up the cynical way in which, only a few weeks ago, the gullible SNP teamed up with a desperate Government to stand against the principle of elected councillors representing Britain on the European Committee of the Regions. That is why they have made such a big issue of this and why last Thursday, opportunistically, they tabled an amendment (a) to each of those new clauses.
    Mr. Salmond: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has been shaken and stirred by the arguments that have been deployed. Can he have forgotten that only last week he sent me a letter saying that,
    "for one principal and good reason",
    the Labour party would not help to defeat the Government this evening—it would not be possible to get the social chapter into the referendum argument? Now that the fig leaf has been removed, what excuse does the hon. Gentleman have for saving the Prime Minister's skin this evening?
    Mr. Robertson: There we have it. This is the man who was trying to save the Prime Minister's skin only a few weeks ago—the very man who led his party into the Lobby to save the principle of Government appointees serving on the Committee of the Regions—and now he dares to lecture me on the subject.
    One of the principal reasons why we are not interested in a referendum is that, almost inevitably, with a Conservative Government putting the question to the country, we would be obliged to campaign for a Maastricht treaty that did not contain the social chapter. That is not the only reason; we have, after all, developed our policy on a referendum over the past year, not in the past five days.
    We all know why the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is so desperate. Anyone who has read the Scottish press and learned what has happened in the SNP over the past few weeks knows perfectly well the reasons for this evening's burst of indignation. If the hon. Gentleman and

    459
    his colleagues who are members of the SNP national executive had not voted for themselves on a motion of censure, they would indeed have been censured by the national executive committee of the SNP.
    Everyone knows that this is not a question of bringing down the Prime Minister. This SNP amendment has little or no chance of gaining the support of the Tory dissidents. Yet we are told to change the policy that we have adopted over the past year. That is a bogus and cynical attempt to wriggle off the hook that the Scottish people will never let the SNP wriggle off.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Robertson: I may eventually come to some of the points that my hon. Friend has raised. After all, I have been listening to them for the past nine years.
    During the debate, some hon. Members have put up arguments supposedly advanced by those who oppose a referendum and then easily shot those arguments down. That is the simplest and oldest debating trick in the book. We are told that some say that the issue is too difficult for the British people to decide. I have never heard anyone, anywhere, say that. If it were true, the House could not decide the matter either. It is a patronising argument, and I have never heard anyone advance it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) claims that some people say that progress towards economic and monetary union does not matter anyway. I have never heard anyone say that either. Even those in favour of the treaty say that it matters. We have all, in fact, said that it matters.
    We have been told that the nature of the treaty is so fundamental that Parliament must put it to a plebiscite. But the treaty does not concern only one issue. Some hon. Members have been honest enough to admit that not just one referendum is being asked for; there would have to be another on stage 3 of economic and monetary union. That, too, is fundamental. If so, why not have another on progress towards a common foreign and security policy? What about the transition to a common asylum policy? Where do we stop? When should Parliament stop taking decisions and start holding referendums?
    I was one of the few people here who were on the Labour Front Bench to discuss the Single European Act in 1976—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nineteen eighty-six."] It just seems that long ago. I was in a road accident in 1976.
    Some Conservative Members and some of my hon. Friends will remember that there was rarely such a large attendance at debates in 1986. Of course, the Conservative party put through probably the most fundamental treaty not just without a referendum but on a guillotine. I am not surprised that my good old friend, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), is not here tonight, although he has been a consistent attender at many of these debates. There may be a good reason for his absence, but I can think of one: he was the Leader of the House who moved the guillotine motion. I do not think that he likes to be reminded of that.
    Is the treaty irrevocable? Is that the real reason why some people want a referendum? The original decision was on being in or out. If we are in the Community, we are all in the same boat—sharing sovereignty, sharing decisions, occasionally winning, occasionally losing. The decision is not irrevocable. The country can decide whether we are in
    460
    or out of the European Community. That decision can be made and, if necessary, would be made by Parliament. Nothing is irrevocable.
    Mr. Shore: It is the most extraordinary flight of fancy to pretend that, as we sign treaty after treaty with a European connection, we have the equal right that we had before we began this disastrous process to reverse it and pull out if we dislike something. My hon. Friend knows that that is not so. The real reason why we should have a referendum on this occasion is that, in spite of the fact that earlier treaties, all of which I have opposed, handed over great chunks of British power to decision-making in the European institutions, this treaty signs us up to a European union which carries the shape of a new state in Europe. If my hon. Friend cannot understand that, he is not fit to speak for my party.
    Mr. Robertson: I do not think that my right hon. Friend ever thought that I was fit to speak on the issue for my party, so that does not come as news to me. I will not rehearse all my usual complimentary remarks about him. Although he has lost the argument and the vote in the Labour party consistently, the reality is that. if the representatives of this country want to come out of the Community and want to get out of the union that is being created—probably only in name—by the treaty, they can do it. I do not want to do that; I do not see the same spectres in the night as so many others do. If the country wants to get out of the Community, it has the right to do so, and nobody can stop it.
    Hon. Members have said that we must let the people have a direct say. On what? It is not a simple, straightforward treaty on one issue. On which issues would the people have a say? Would it be on economic and monetary union and a single currency? Would it be on more powers for the European Parliament, or on more new competences in the Community? A yes or no answer is not relevant in circumstances where there is a series of issues.
    Parliament has been able to consider the Bill. The Opposition Front Bench has not sought to wreck the treaty on any individual amendment, nor should we. We never said that we would do that. Every socialist party in the European Community and in all the applicant countries wants the Maastricht treaty, so we will not wreck it for them on the basis of one amendment on one aspect. The Government wanted to make the Committee of the Regions some mini health board consisting of a handful of friendly Tory business men, Government appointees. We forced them to accept that it will be made up of locally elected representatives.
    On Monday, the Government accepted new clause 1, which places an obligation on the Governor of the Bank of England to place a report before Parliament. New clause 2 and amendment No. 420 were accepted. Who knows what the Government will accept at the end of' tonight's debate?
    That all happened because Parliament went through the Bill. Without destroying the treaty, we have improved it for the whole of Europe. A yes or no referendum would not and could not do that.
    Mr. Gill: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the majority of Labour voters are in favour of this treaty on European union?
    12.45 am
    Mr. Robertson: Yes, I do. [Interruption.] I cannot prove that they do, any more than the hon. Gentleman can prove that they do not. When the Labour party conference debated it last year after the election and after debate in the party on the treaty as a whole, an overwhelming majority said that, although it was not perfect, it was the best that was obtainable in the circumstances.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham advanced an argument that is not confined to Opposition Members. He said that Parliament was not really reliable to carry out such scrutiny. He said that, after all, we are all subject to the Whips and that, when both Front Benches agreed on the basic thesis that the Maastricht treaty should go through, Parliament was not reliable. My hon. Friend was in the shadow Cabinet for years telling people what the whipping would be for the following week. Now he tells me that Parliament has no right to a say and cannot make decisions on its own, that it is precluded from doing so because the party leaderships, through their decision-making machinery, some of which is democratic and some of which is certainly not democratic, have decided. That does not stand any scrutiny.
    Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Robertson: No. I wish to make progress.
    It was said that, during the election campaign, there was a cover-up conspiracy by the two Front Benches. It was said that the issue was not raised in the election and people did not know about it, and that therefore there must be a referendum. The Foreign Secretary said that, for party political advantage, he tried to raise it. That comes as a surprise, because I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was above that. I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) also tried, and we can produce the press releases that we put out. We can produce journalists who were briefed to the point of tedium, but, of course, little was heard about that.
    I spent much time repeatedly telling the electorate that the Government were proud of opting out of one of the significant advantages of the Maastricht treaty. During that election campaign, my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham was quite properly drawing attention to other matters. People were listening to him and, sad to say for my political future, they were not listening to me. The topic was there all the time and has not been suppressed in any way.
    Mr. Gould: Will my hon. Friend refresh our memories about how people might have voted if they had taken a view contrary to the view of the leaders of both the major parties? Does he recall people having any option to vote for or against the Maastricht treaty, or were they simply presented with a monolithic position, agreed to by the leadership of all the major parties? For that reason, the matter was never an issue in the general election campaign.
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend was in the leadership of the Labour party during that campaign, and that leadership told the people that, if we were returned to power we would ratify the Maastricht treaty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton made that absolutely plain. We would have ratified it, with the social chapter included in it.
    The leaderships of the parties were united on a number of other issues. I dare say that that, in a clinical, technical
    462
    way, denied people the right to vote against such issues. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland said, the British people must have drawn some conclusion from the fact that the leaderships of all the parties standing in the election, with the exception of the Ulster Unionists, were in favour of the Maastricht treaty, however imperfect they may have thought it in the detail. They would have drawn a conclusion from that, but to suggest that there was a conspiracy is nonsense.
    We are told that public opinion must be the criterion. I agree that pubic opinion is extremely important. However, hardly a single politician in the Committee, if asked to comment on an opinion poll, would not say, if it were on a matter that he thought was contrary to his party's interest, "Ah well, it is only a snapshot, I am interested only in trends, I don't rely on one opinion poll."
    A significant number of people want a referendum on Maastricht, but a similar majority would want a referendum on the return of capital punishment, perhaps on the abortion laws, almost certainly on the Sunday trading laws. On a whole series of issues, if people were asked whether they would like a referendum, they would say in almost the same proportion that they would like a referendum. However, if that is to be the principle on which we base the judgments we take, what will there be left for us to do?
    I make the point that many others have made in the debate. Those who cry loudest about Parliament handing over sovereignty to Brussels—when we are sharing power with 12 other countries at Brussels, building on that share of sovereignty, making sure that we participate in, and get advantage from, that shared sovereignty—happen also to be those who are most keen to hand over sovereignty, on this and probably many other issues, to the rule of the plebiscite.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Robertson: No, I shall not give way. I have tried to answer many points, but time is moving on.
    Sir Roger Moate: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has had his chance, and a fairly lengthy chance at that, but I should like to conclude so that others may speak in the debate.
    Most of the people—I concede, not all—who are seeking a referendum do so because they want a "no" majority. If they were frank, as some are, they would admit that what drives and motivates them is not just opposition to Maastricht but opposition to the European Community as a whole. So be it: they are entitled to that view. They failed in Parliament in 1972 and in 1976 and in the referendum of 1975, but they are entitled to keep on their campaigning.
    The Labour party believes that Britain is in the European Community and should remain there. We believe that Parliament is the place where the issues can be debated, and the scrutiny that the British people expect and deserve can be given to the treaty and all the serious issues that are in it. For that reason, and many of the other reasons that I have enunciated and that have been enunciated by my right hon. and hon. Friends here and elsewhere, we shall oppose new clause 49.
    Mr. Michael Lord: It is significant that, as we near the end of the Committee, the previous two speakers—from the Front Benches—addressed us in a

    463
    way that showed clearly the cosy relationship that the two Front Benches have had throughout the Committee proceedings.
    I am not sure what impact my words will have, but it is vital to me to be able to tell the Committee how strongly I feel about this issue. I feel certain that, however well or badly I put my thoughts, this will be my most important contribution in my 10 years in the House and, together with my vote at the end of the debate, it may be the most important thing that I do for as long as I am a Member of Parliament.
    The debate is not simply about whether this great House of Commons continues to govern our nation; it is also about how it is governing today and how in touch it is with the people it governs.
    The whole sorry tale of the Maastricht treaty began at an intergovernmental conference in Rome in December 1990. As I was one of the delegation from the House at that conference, I suppose that I must, to some extent, bear some responsibility for what resulted from it. What a farce that first intergovernmental conference was! The delegates were supposed to attend as representatives of their countries, not of their political parties, and with reasonably open minds. On arrival, however, we were all placed in party-political groupings and it quickly became clear to me that few open minds were to be seen. It also became clear to me almost as soon as I arrived that the final proposals that the conference would put forward had been decided before it even started. If one asks what influence that conference had on the final proposals, the answer is absolutely none.
    Europe can sometimes be very colourful. On the final morning of the conference, we voted for hours on 220 different amendments, all produced on purple paper. I have them with me and I will keep them for ever to remind me of that day. The voting finally finished, one or two of us having voted against the amendments while hundreds voted for them. Everyone seemed very happy, glasses clinked and we departed homewards. If ever the slogan, "Is your journey really necessary?" was applicable, it was to the 1990 intergovernmental conference in Rome.
    The purple amendments gave way to the yellow treaty. Of course when we ask, "Why a referendum?" we must remember that the people of this country were not consulted about the drafting of that treaty. They never have been properly consulted since.
    Under normal circumstances, I would not advocate a referendum because I believe that it is the duty of Members of Parliament to take decisions on behalf of their constituents and not to thrust those decisions back on their constituents' shoulders. But this is different. The Maastricht treaty will take away from Members of Parliament the right and the ability, fought for and cherished for centuries, to represent and stand up for their constituents in the House. If that power is to be given away or greatly diluted, as it is under the Maastricht treaty, only the British people, individually, can agree to it. The House of Commons cannot give away power, rights and responsibilities which belong not to it, but to the people.
    The constant refrain from Ministers has been that some people are in favour of the Maastricht treaty, while others would like to come out of Europe altogether. That statement is one of those quarter truths that have clouded the entire debate. Most people do not fall into one of those two groups; they lie exactly between those two extremes.
    464
    During the general election, in common with many other hon. Members, I knocked on many doors. I must confess that the Maastricht treaty was not on the lips of everyone to whom I spoke. When it came up, however, the message I always received, loud and clear, was that people believed in the need for a common market, for which they clearly understood the nation voted in a referendum some years ago. They believed that a common market, or a free trade area, in Europe made a great deal of sense, but they did not want to go beyond that.
    There are many good reasons for a referendum on this issue which I will not rehearse because many of them were given earlier.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend will accept that our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made repeated reference to the 1972 treaty of Rome. He said firmly to the Committee that it not only had an economic content but a political one. Is not the reality that the House misled the people into believing that the common market and the treaty of Rome were primarily, if not exclusively, about trade and economic matters and would not in any way impugn or undermine the sovereignty of the country and our Parliament?
    1 am
    Mr. Lord: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The debate has teased out many truths about what has happened over the years in respect of agreements and treaties. If those truths had been made known to the people at the time, I believe that they would have reacted differently.
    Ministers often say that the people are not happy about the Maastricht treaty and the present position in Europe because they do not understand the treaty. When the people come to understand fully what has already been given away in their name, we shall see the strongest possible reaction.
    There are many good reasons why a referendum should be held. For example, as all the major parties were in favour of the treaty during the general election campaign, the electorate was unable to register its vote against it. The text of the treaty was not available to the general public until some time after the election.
    This is too important a matter to be bulldozed through the House of Commons as a face-saving exercise for the Government so as not to upset our European colleagues. Nothing annoys me more than to hear many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who are voting for the Bill saying behind the scenes that they want only to get the Bill out of the way and then start negotiations to get the Europe that we want. What humbug! What family, business or organisation would sign a contract in which it did not believe on the basis that on the next day it could enter into new negotiations for a better deal?
    Let no one fool himself about the reaction of Delors or others in Europe to the ratification of the treaty. We think that Europe is slowing down and that our voice is being heard, but once the treaty is ratified, Jacques Delors and his colleagues will have seen the process as a minor hiccup on the grand march towards the Europe in which they believe.
    A referendum would not undermine parliamentary sovereignty. After all, previous referendums have not done so. If a referendum is properly carried out, it can supplement and enrich democracy and restore people's

    465
    faith in the system. An excellent editorial in The Times on 25 February showed how a referendum is far from alien to the Conservative tradition. Various leaders have been referred to, including Balfour, Baldwin and Churchill. They all considered and advocated referendums at various times. Parliament is undermined not by the idea of a referendum but by the squalid tactics that have been and are being employed to get the Bill through the House of Commons.
    The Europe to which the Maastricht treaty is taking us is a dream of an out-of-touch, elitist group of civil servants and some senior, not to say in other parts of Europe, elderly politicians. It is not a Europe which makes any sense to the people of the United Kingdom. Jacques Delors said after the French referendum that Europe was an elitist venture and only the decision makers needed to be convinced. At the end of March, Willy de Clerc, the leader of the committee that produced an appalling report on rebuilding the Community's image, said that Governments and the Community should stop trying to explain the treaty. To use his words, "It is 'inexplainable'." He added that treaty decisions were far too technical and removed from daily life for people to understand. Should any laws be so incomprehensible? We are faced with a civil servant's dream and an ordinary person's nightmare.
    Civil servants and politicians involved in European legislation seem to suffer from schizophrenia. Views depend entirely on which side of the channel an individual is sitting. Directives that seem sensible and communautaire when agreed in the neutral, rarefied and utopian atmosphere of a Brussels committee room or a Strasbourg restaurant become nonsensical when applied to the local factory, the corner shop or the women's institute. It would be funny if they were not doing so much damage.
    A referendum campaign would initiate the debate that the nation has so far been denied and would widen the understanding of the treaty. The Danish people seem to manage it, so why cannot we?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way on that very point?
    Mr. Lord: With respect, I must press on. The hour is late. There is a little more that I want to say and I have waited a long time to say it.
    Are we really going to say that our people cannot have a referendum—that their fate must hang on the decision made by the people of Denmark in their referendum? The Irish and French have now held referendums. Are they so much more intelligent and politically aware than our people? I do not think so.
    I am one of the Conservative Members who, throughout our debates on the Bill, have been called rebels. It is a label of which I am neither proud nor ashamed. I have never voted against the Government before in the 10 years in which I have been in the House, but this matter is much more important to me than any of the labels that are bandied about. If "rebel" is the correct term for a Member of Parliament who does what he believes to be right in regard to a great issue of the day, I am happy to be associated with former rebels in the Conservative party who also stuck to their guns.
    In the 1843 Session of Parliament, Disraeli voted against the Government 10 times. In 1844, he did so seven
    466
    times. During the passage of the Government of India Bill in the 1930s, Winston Churchill voted against the Bill 30 times in Committee and once on Report. It is interesting to note that, on at least two occasions, Churchill moved motions to report progress.
    Macmillan joined the rebellion against the Government's appeasement policy; and, after a foreign affairs debate in June 1936, he was one of two Tory Members who voted against the Government. A week later, he resigned the Whip. When Anthony Eden resigned in February 1938, he said at the start of his resignation statement:
    "there are occasions when strong political convictions must override all other considerations. Of such occasions only the individual himself can be the judge. No man can be the keeper of another man's conscience".
    It is interesting to note how little things have changed in the last half century. During the Committee stage of the Government of India Bill in 1935, Winston Churchill wrote to his wife:
    "we do very well in the debate but the Government have mobilised 250 of their followers who do not trouble to listen to the debates but march in solidly and vote us down with large majorities usually swelled by the Socialists and always by the Liberals. It is going to be a long weary business".
    On 2 March, he wrote to her again:
    "The Government's supporters are cowed, resentful and sullen. They keep 250 waiting about in the Libraries and Smoking Rooms to vote us down on every amendment and we have a fighting force of about 50 which holds together with increasing loyalty and conviction."
    His letter ended:
    "The Divisions go the other way, but we mock at them for being lackeys and slaves".
    During this Committee stage, I have heard the best speeches that I have heard since becoming a Member of Parliament. How sad it is that they have all too frequently been made to almost empty Galleries. I believe that the speeches have been so good because, by and large, the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have understood their subject and cared deeply about it. The Government have won the votes, but they have never won the arguments.
    Perhaps the most important point for me so far was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell). In a wonderful speech on 24 March, he comprehensively destroyed any credible case for a central bank. His remarks were given added authority by the fact that—I suspect—he knows more about international banking than any other Member of Parliament.
    However, it is not my hon. Friend's remarks about banking that I shall remember for many years to come; it is his description of how a colleague of his in the House many years ago, Walter Elliot, had told him that voting for Munich—out of loyalty to Neville Chamberlain—had not only eventually wrecked his political career, but, more important, permanently damaged his self-esteem. He never ceased to reproach himself for his vote as events unfolded. My hon. Friend predicted that, 10 years from now, very few Conservative Members would admit that they had ever supported the Maastricht treaty.
    Churchill said, "Trust the people." We have heard that phrase several times today. On this issue, we must not only trust the people; we must explain to them what is at stake and seek their views. We keep talking about open government, but if people really do not understand what

    467
    we are doing in the House of Commons, they are shut out of the affairs of our nation just as effectively as if a door had been slammed in their face.
    Many recent decisions by the Government have raised serious questions about how in touch with the people we are. How tragic it would be if this estrangement were to reach its peak on a matter of such magnitude. It is essential for any Government to keep in touch with the people. We may not think that they need to be consulted, but what happens if they think that they ought to be and they are not? If their views are not sought and if events in Europe go the way that I suspect they will, they will feel cheated and angry.
    What, then, will be the repercussions, not just on European issues but on the whole relationship between the nation and its Government.? We want more open and more honest government. Why do we not start now? A referendum on this issue could be the turning point, giving back to the people their involvement and rekindling their trust.
    I particularly urge the Prime Minister not to allow the responsibility for forcing this dubious treaty on our country to rest entirely on his own shoulders. He has done all that anyone possibly could to keep his word on the Maastricht treaty and to honour his commitment, but it is now almost a year and a half since that commitment was given and so much has changed in the Community and the wider Europe. The world has moved on significantly. The Danes have voted no. There is great anxiety throughout Europe about this treaty and a growing belief in all countries that on this issue leaders are out of touch with their people. Our Prime Minister is entitled to say, "I have done my best, but the whole European scene is now so changed that I feel obliged to recognise the concerns of the British people about this issue and to put the matter to them in a referendum."
    The Prime Minister wants a nation at ease with itself. Our nation is not at the moment at ease with itself. It is a nation hypnotised by Europe and frustrated by its inability to act decisively, not just in its own best interests but in the best interests of the other nations of Europe. For a nation to be at ease with itself, it needs to be at ease with its neighbours, and we are not.
    There should be no need to enforce co-operation between European allies in a treaty. If they agree on policies, they can act together freely and in their own mutual interest. Forced co-operation and co-ordination, as in the exchange rate mechanism, creates unnecessary pressures which eventually have to be released, one way or the other.
    I believe that very few Members of this House of Commons really have their hearts in the Maastricht treaty any more. If that is true, how wrong it would be to foist it on the British people without their consent. I am prepared to admit that I want to see a referendum, not just for the reasons that I gave earlier but because I very much hope and believe that the British people do not want the Maastricht treaty and would vote against it.
    I hope that hon. Members who vote against a referendum tonight will at least admit to themselves that they may be voting against a referendum on the Maastricht treaty partly on principle but also because they know that a referendum, if granted, would result in a resounding no.
    The House of Commons, established and maintained by sacrifices and traditions for centuries, has to make a
    468
    historic decision. This issue is said to be an extremely complicated one, but I wonder whether that is really true. Perhaps all great issues are essentially very simple. Perhaps we make them complicated when we do not want to face them. The very simple question that I want the British people to be asked is: "Do you want to be governed by the House of Commons or Brussels?"
    This is about our country's independence, integrity and individuality. It is about all those things which, as has already been mentioned in the debate today, pilots in the battle of Britain fought and died for. In its own way, the treaty is a battle for Britain, the big difference being that we, as Members of Parliament, do not have to sacrifice our lives but only to cast our votes. I hope that when hon. Members cast their votes, they will allow the people of this country to say what they want our votes to mean and to stand for in the years to come.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is an unusual pleasure to be able to follow speeches by members of the two main Front Benches because in Maastricht debates we have usually heard no senior but junior members of the Front Benches —senior members of the Front Benches have wanted to stay away and not commit themselves to anything in the dead of night. It is interesting that two senior Front Benchers feel so guilty about what is being said in opposing a referendum that they have come to justify it at such length and in such arcane ways.
    1.15 am
    The Foreign Secretary's speech was interesting. I have always regarded him as an other-worldly figure, possibly a foreigner, in his Loden overcoat about which I heard someone remark, "The last time I saw someone wearing an overcoat like that, I shot him." His speech revealed that he is so other-wordly that he has spent the past six months on another planet. He feels that the people of this country are in favour of the Maastricht treaty and that the overwhelming majority of the Conservative party is in favour of it and opposed to a referendum.
    If he feels that, why not put it to the test? Why not put the issue to the people if they think as he believes they do? Instead, he says that we should not have a referendum because we did not have one on the Single European Act which, to people like me, simply means that one should not trust politicans again. They said that the Act changed nothing but subsequently admit that it changed everything so much that we should have had a referendum. The Foreign Secretary even says that the 1975 referendum produced a final verdict. Yet we were positively assured that it had stopped progress towards monetary union and all the things that we are being offered now.
    My party's Front Bench spokesman gave a brilliant performance in whipping up support for a referendum. For that reason, I did not want to interrupt him. However, he did not deal with the central argument of those of us who want a referendum. It has nothing to do. with the intricate politics of Scottish nationalism or an internal argument in Scotland. I hesitated to intrude on the domestic row. The central point is our belief that, on a matter of basic constitutional change, the people should be consulted. That is what it is about, not a desire to bring down the Government or to do anything else. The people have a right to be consulted.
    I thought that the Liberal Front Bench spokesman made the most effective speech of the three Front Bench

    469
    spokesmen. He made the basic point that the only way to get the treaty settled in and accepted and to get popular consent is to let the people speak. If not, there will be the long whingeing embittering rear-guard action about which the critics of a referendum have complained all along. Refusal will guarantee that the bitter feeling of frustration will be amplified.
    If we now refuse the people a referendum, they will justly feel cheated because they will have been cheated. When the consequences of the treaty, in terms of economic deflation and the other problems that we have foreseen, become apparent, their resentment will take the form of a long, whimpering, whingeing bitterness, which will guarantee that neither the treaty nor European union will be acceptable to them and that both will be bitterly resisted.
    One cannot make people enthusiastic about Europe by putting them out of a job or, especially, by not telling them that that will be the consequence of the treaty or by not giving them the opportunity to say whether they want to accept it in the first place. A referendum is the only way to get democratic acceptance of the treaty.
    I cannot see what the critics of a referendum fear. They have the support of the Front-Bench spokesmen on both sides of the House, and the Foreign Secretary tells us that they have the support of the Conservative party. They have the support of the majority of the Labour party, and the support of the Liberals, the Scottish nationalists, the CBI, the TUC—so they tell us—and of the press and all the rest of the media. They have the support of The Independent and of The Guardian, which believes in "My Europe, right or wrong,"—or, as The Guardian would put it, "My Europe right or wrong." Yet with all that support they still fear that there will not be a majority in favour of Maastricht. That is inconceivable. Their case must be absolutely pathetic if even with all that support they fear that Maastricht will be rejected.
    At this stage in the argument I must make a confession. When I used to teach political science—when I was concerned with the theory, before coming here to fail the practicals—I opposed referendums, for two basic reasons. First, I thought that the system as it was worked well and that party government gave us the power to change. I thought that a majority, a mandate, would give a Labour party the power to change the system in this country and make it a fairer society. Secondly, I believed that a referendum, as a conservative device that was opposed to change, would deny us that power. We have to face the fact that a referendum is a conservative device.
    Those two reasons for opposing referendums were confirmed by my first experience of a referendum in 1967. In New Zealand I voted in favour of ending the 6 o'clock swill. That was a basic mistake in my life, because the result changed New Zealand society and ruined social habits there. It meant that people were drinking all night instead of going totally berserk and being out of their brains by 7 o'clock, with the rest of the evening to sober up. So my first referendum vote was a basic mistake.
    Since then I have changed my view, because the social base on which parties and politics in this country rests is now out of adjustment with the polity in the country. Because the social base has changed we now get, not alternation of parties, not the power to change things, but a prolonged period of dictatorship by the minority. That is the consequence of the change in the system.
    470
    There is now a growing gulf between politics, politicians and parties on the one hand, and the people on the other. There is now a class of professional career politicians who want to get on, and one way to get on is to testify one's loyalty to Europe, the source of all blessing, jobs, sinecures and cashflow. Ours becomes a system in which people climb by conforming, and as they do so they get more and more out of touch with the people. That gulf is compounded by the economic difficulties of a country in decline, which mean that politicians cannot deliver the well-being that people ask for.
    For all those reasons, there is a gulf between politicians and people, and the people feel resentful. They feel that they are not consulted or listened to. We make that worse if we do not allow them to be consulted on a basic constitutional issue. They should be consulted on constitutional issues, and the Labour party has led the way in doing that. We gave the people the referendum on entry, although it came belatedly in 1975, and we gave the people a referendum on devolution in Scotland and Wales. It went against us, and it was not adequate, but it was Labour party policy to consult the people.
    Mr. Salmond: The referendum did not go against you. The people supported it.
    Mr. Mitchell: The figure was slightly over 50 per cent., but we did not get the 40 per cent. that we required; it was 32·8 per cent. or something like that. I forget the exact figure. All that I am saying is that we gave the people the referendum; it was Labour party policy, which we all voted for and supported. Why now change our minds? It is clear that there should be a referendum on a constitutional issue.
    Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend will know that the Labour party's policy in Scotland is to have a multi-referendum. We are still keen to have one, so we would give the people in Scotland the right to make a decision on a highly complex issue. I say, and I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees, that we shall be insulting the intelligence of the people of Britain if we do not give them a referendum. I do not know which way the people of Britain would vote. However, that is not important. The point is that democracy is important. If it is good for Boris Yeltsin, it is good for other folk.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am not sure whether everything that is good for Boris Yeltsin is good for me. I do not take as much of it, if I can put it that way.
    The people should be consulted on constitutional issues. Labour has consulted them in the past and there will be a change in their powers over our system of government in respect of their constitutional role. In respect of Maastricht, we cannot make people citizens of a union, with the rights and duties of citizens of a union, without consulting them. We cannot impose on the people the kind of economic framework that we are imposing on them without consulting them.
    This basic change is being made by the back door. There is a surge and drive to unity in Europe. However, popular consent cannot be achieved in referendums and there is no intergovernmental agreement. If we had been able to achieve intergovernmental agreement, the CAP would not have survived for as long as it has, still absorbing more than 60 per cent. of Europe's spending. As popular consent and intergovernmental agreement cannot

    471
    be achieved, the idea is to impose unity from the top down through monetary union which is the core of the Maastricht treaty.
    As a result, we will be committed to re-enter the ERM and to monetary union. As part of the treaty we are committed to hand over the powers that a Labour Government, or any sensible Government, would need to revive the declining economy of this country and to widen our industrial base. That includes power over interest rates, over the exchange rate, over borrowing and over the money supply.
    All those tools will have been handed over. We do not have the ability or the right to hand over to another entity those powers which rightly belong to the people and the Government whom they elect, without consulting the people. However, that is what we are being asked to do. It is a mistake to create a Europe in which central bankers rule OK and untrammelled without any control over their decisions without consulting the people. We should not hand over those weapons.
    At one stage in the debate, we asked what a Labour Government would do, when they took office in 1996 with a mandate to rebuild the economy, to fight rising unemployment and to widen the industrial base, if all those powers had been handed over. The Opposition Front Bench spokesman said, "Oh well, we'll go to Brussels and negotiate." We will not actually do anything because we cannot do anything, so we end up with the spectacle of a Labour Government—a Labour Government—hiring taxis to scuttle around Brussels to ask permission to stop making their own people redundant as consequence of the treaty.
    It has been said that this is not irrevocable, but it is. It is absolutely irrevocable. Once the powers are gone, they are gone and that is it. It has also been said that we do not need to consult the people in a referendum because they have already been consulted in the election. That is totally bogus. All the parties presented the same policies on Maastricht. There was no choice for people in most constituencies who were against the treaty. What were they to do? Were they to abdicate the hope of change or were they to concentrate simply on the issue of Maastricht? It is totally unrealistic to claim that the election decided the issue.
    It is also unrealistic to say that Parliament should decide the issue because there is effectively a conspiracy between the parties.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Mitchell: Yes, of course. I am sorry, I did not see the hon. Gentleman rising.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman avoid misleading his Front Bench about the powers after the Maastricht treaty has been passed? Does he accept that the power available to a possible future Labour Government to go to Brussels and plead for certain changes in policy will be removed totally when the central bank takes over? Will the hon. Gentleman consider page 91 of the treaty where he will see that, after the central bank takes over, no Labour Government, Conservative Government or even a Liberal Democrat Government will be allowed to make representations or a telephone call to the bank, or even send it a letter? Does he appreciate that it is not simply the
    472
    abolition of freedom, democracy, socialism or conservatism? Basically, it means that there is not much point in voting for anyone at the next election.
    1.30 pm
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is correct. Our only power will be not to send letters to the bank but to receive letters from it. Presumably, we will be charged 30 million ecu for each letter telling us that we are in overdraft. The hon. Gentleman reinforces my point.
    Government Front Bench and Labour Front Bench spokesmen are saying the same thing: the treaty is not perfect; it will not work well; time has passed it by; it is probably dead and it is unable to be implemented but we must still pass it as a testimony to our commitment to the Community. Our electors—the people—do not share that commitment, but we must testify to it to Europe. For the first time, the Liberals have tasted power—
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question put, That the Question be now put:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 299, Noes 110.

    Division No. 245]

    [1.30 am

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Chapman, Sydney

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Churchill, Mr

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Clappison, James

    Alexander, Richard

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Alton, David

    Coe, Sebastian

    Amess, David

    Colvin, Michael

    Ancram, Michael

    Congdon, David

    Arbuthnot, James

    Conway, Derek

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Ashby, David

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Cormack, Patrick

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Couchman, James

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Baldry, Tony

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Day, Stephen

    Bates, Michael

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Batiste, Spencer

    Devlin, Tim

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Bellingham, Henry

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Dover, Den

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Duncan, Alan

    Booth, Hartley

    Dunn, Bob

    Boswell, Tim

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Eggar, Tim

    Bowden, Andrew

    Elletson, Harold

    Bowis, John

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Brazier, Julian

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Evennett, David

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Faber, David

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Burt, Alistair

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Butler, Peter

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Butterfill, John

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Forman, Nigel

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Forth, Eric

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    473

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Maclean, David

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Freeman, Roger

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    French, Douglas

    Madel, David

    Fry, Peter

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Gale, Roger

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gallie, Phil

    Malone, Gerald

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Mans, Keith

    Garnier, Edward

    Marland, Paul

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gorst, John

    Mates, Michael

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Merchant, Piers

    Grylls. Sir Michael

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Milligan, Stephen

    Hague, William

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hannam, Sir John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Nelson, Anthony

    Harris, David

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hawkins, Nick

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hayes, Jerry

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Heald, Oliver

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Hendry, Charles

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hicks, Robert

    Ottaway, Richard

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Page, Richard

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Paice, James

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Horam, John

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Pawsey, James

    Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dtord)

    Pickles, Eric

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Redwood, John

    Jack, Michael

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Richards, Rod

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Riddick, Graham

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Sackville, Tom

    Key, Robert

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

    Shersby, Michael

    Knox, David

    Sims, Roger

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Soames, Nicholas

    Leigh, Edward

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lidington, David

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lightbown, David

    Spring, Richard

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Sproat, Iain

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Luff, Peter

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Steen, Anthony

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Stephen, Michael

    Macdonald, Calum

    Stern, Michael

    474

    Stewart, Allan

    Wallace, James

    Streeter, Gary

    Waller, Gary

    Sumberg, David

    Ward, John

    Sykes, John

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Taylor, John M, (Solihull)

    Watts, John

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Wells, Bowen

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Thomason, Roy

    Whitney, Ray

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Whittingdale, John

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Thurnham, Peter

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Willetts, David

    Tracey, Richard

    Wolfson, Mark

    Tredinnick, David

    Wood, Timothy

    Trend, Michael

    Yeo, Tim

    Trotter, Neville

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Tyler, Paul

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Viggers, Peter

    Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Walden, George

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Knapman, Roger

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Leighton, Ron

    Barron, Kevin

    Lewis, Terry

    Bayley, Hugh

    Lord, Michael

    Beggs, Roy

    Loyden, Eddie

    Bendall, Vivian

    McAllion, John

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    McKelvey, William

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    McNamara, Kevin

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Madden, Max

    Callaghan, Jim

    Mahon, Alice

    Canavan, Dennis

    Marlow, Tony

    Cann, Jamie

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Meale, Alan

    Cash, William

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Cohen, Harry

    Pickthall, Colin

    Connarty, Michael

    Pike, Peter L.

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Reid, Dr John

    Cousins, Jim

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Cran, James

    Rooker, Jeff

    Cryer, Bob

    Rooney, Terry

    Davidson, Ian

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Salmond, Alex

    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Dixon, Don

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Simpson, Alan

    Dowd, Jim

    Skinner, Dennis

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Etherington, Bill

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Spearing, Nigel

    Fatchett, Derek

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Fisher, Mark

    Stevenson, George

    Galloway, George

    Stott, Roger

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Sweeney, Walter

    Gill, Christopher

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Gould, Bryan

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Graham, Thomas

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Hanson, David

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Hardy, Peter

    Wareing, Robert N

    Harvey, Nick

    Watson, Mike

    Heppell, John

    Welsh, Andrew

    Hood, Jimmy

    Wilkinson, John

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Winnick, David

    Illsley, Eric

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Jessel, Toby

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Wise, Audrey

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Wray, Jimmy

    475

    Wright Dr Tony

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Young David (Bolton SE)

    Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Ken Livingstone.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Question put accordingly and negatived.
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): As promised on Monday, I shall now call for separate Divisions only on new clause 10 and new clause 12, neither of which is directly connected with the matter that the Committee has been discussing on new clause 8. A separate Division on new clause 49, which is related to new clause 8 and the referendum, will come after the two new clauses.

    New clause 10

      REPORT OF EUROPEAN COUNCIL
      '.—After the European Council has submitted its report after each of its meetings, Her Majesty's Government shall publish and lay such reports, and those annual reports in writing, as required by Title 1, Article D of the Treaty on European Union before Parliament, together with a statement as to their policy and performance in respect of the activities of the Union and their policies for its future.'—[Mr. Shore.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 189, Noes 292.

      Division No. 246]

      [1.43 am

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Darling, Alistair

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Davidson, Ian

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Allen, Graham

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dewar, Donald

      Barnes, Harry

      Dixon, Don

      Barron, Kevin

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Battle, John

      Dowd, Jim

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Enright, Derek

      Beggs, Roy

      Etherington, Bill

      Bell, Stuart

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Blair, Tony

      Foulkes, George

      Boateng, Paul

      Fraser, John

      Bradley, Keith

      Fyfe, Maria

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

      Galloway, George

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Callaghan, Jim

      Garrett, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gill, Christopher

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Cann, Jamie

      Gould, Bryan

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Graham, Thomas

      Carttiss, Michael

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Cash, William

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Gunnell, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hall, Mike

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hanson, David

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hardy, Peter

      Cohen, Harry

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Connarty, Michael

      Harvey, Nick

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Henderson, Doug

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Heppell, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cran, James

      Home Robertson, John

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Hood, Jimmy

      476

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Reid, Dr John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Illsley, Eric

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Ingram, Adam

      Rogers, Allan

      Jessel, Toby

      Rooker, Jeff

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Rooney, Terry

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Salmond, Alex

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Sheerman, Barry

      Knapman, Roger

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Leighton, Ron

      Short, Clare

      Lewis, Terry

      Simpson, Alan

      Livingstone, Ken

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lord, Michael

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

      McAllion, John

      Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McFall, John

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      McKelvey, William

      Spearing, Nigel

      McLeish, Henry

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Stevenson, George

      McWilliam, John

      Stott, Roger

      Madden, Max

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Mahon, Alice

      Straw, Jack

      Marek, Dr John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marlow, Tony

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Meale, Alan

      Tipping, Paddy

      Michael, Alun

      Vaz, Keith

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Milburn, Alan

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Miller, Andrew

      Walley, Joan

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Wareing, Robert N

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Watson, Mike

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Welsh, Andrew

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Wilkinson, John

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Mullin, Chris

      Winnick, David

      Murphy, Paul

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wise, Audrey

      Pendry, Tom

      Worthington, Tony

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wray, Jimmy

      Pike, Peter L.

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Prescott, John

      Mr. Bob Cryer, and Mr. Austin Mitchell.

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Radice, Giles

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bellingham, Henry

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Alexander, Richard

      Booth, Hartley

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Boswell, Tim

      Alton, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Amess, David

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Ancram, Michael

      Bowden, Andrew

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bowis, John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Brazier, Julian

      Ashby, David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Burns, Simon

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Burt, Alistair

      Baldry, Tony

      Butler, Peter

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Butterfill, John

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Bates, Michael

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Carrington, Matthew

      477

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Churchill, Mr

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Clappison, James

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Horam, John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Coe, Sebastian

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

      Congdon. David

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Conway, Derek

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Couchman, James

      Jack, Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dafis, Cynog

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Day, Stephen

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Devlin, Tim

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Key, Robert

      Dover, Den

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Duncan, Alan

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dunn, Bob

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Eggar, Tim

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Elletson, Harold

      Knox, David

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Leigh, Edward

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Evennett, David

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Faber, David

      Lidington, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Luff, Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Forth, Eric

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Maclean, David

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Freeman, Roger

      Madel, David

      French, Douglas

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Gale, Roger

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Gallie, Phil

      Malone, Gerald

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Mans, Keith

      Garnier, Edward

      Marland, Paul

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gorst, John

      Mates, Michael

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Merchant, Piers

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Milligan, Stephen

      Hague, William

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hannam, Sir John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Nelson, Anthony

      Harris, David

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hawkins, Nick

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hayes, Jerry

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Heald, Oliver

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hendry, Charles

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hicks, Robert

      Ottaway, Richard

      478

      Page, Richard

      Stern, Michael

      Paice, James

      Stewart, Allan

      Patnick, Irvine

      Streeter, Gary

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Sumberg, David

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Sykes, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Pickles, Eric

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Thomason, Roy

      Rathbone, Tim

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Redwood, John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Richards, Rod

      Thurnham, Peter

      Riddick, Graham

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tracey, Richard

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Tredinnick, David

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Trend, Michael

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Trotter, Neville

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Tyler, Paul

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Sackville, Tom

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Walden, George

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wallace, James

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Waller, Gary

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Ward, John

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Shersby, Michael

      Watts, John

      Sims, Roger

      Wells, Bowen

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Whitney, Ray

      Soames, Nicholas

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Willetts, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Wolfson, Mark

      Spring, Richard

      Wood, Timothy

      Sproat, Iain

      Yeo, Tim

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Steen, Anthony

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

      Stephen, Michael

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 12

      APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 100C OF THE TREATY OF ROME TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS ON CO-OPERATION IN THE FIELDS OF JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS
      'No notification shall be given to the Council of the European Communities that the United Kingdom has adopted a decision of the Council under Article K 9. (Application of Article 100c of the Treaty of European Union) of the Treaty of European Union unless a draft of the notification has first been approved by Act of Parliament.'. —[Mr. Shore.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 84, Noes 292.

      Division No. 247]

      [1.54 am

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Canavan, Dennis

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Cann, Jamie

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cash, William

      Beggs, Roy

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cohen, Harry

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Connarty, Michael

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Callaghan, Jim

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Cran, James

      479

      Davidson, Ian

      Mullin, Chris

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Etherington, Bill

      Rooney, Terry

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Galloway, George

      Rowlands, Ted

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Gill, Christopher

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Simpson, Alan

      Gould, Bryan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Graham, Thomas

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hanson, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Harvey, Nick

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Jessel, Toby

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Knapman, Roger

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Watson, Mike

      Leighton, Ron

      Wilkinson, John

      Lewis, Terry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Winnick, David

      Loyden, Eddie

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      McAllion, John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      McKelvey, William

      Wise, Audrey

      Madden, Max

      Wray, Jimmy

      Mahon, Alice

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Marlow, Tony

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Austin Mitchell.

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Alexander, Richard

      Churchill, Mr

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Clappison, James

      Alton, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Amess, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Ancram, Michael

      Coe, Sebastian

      Arbuthnot, James

      Colvin, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Congdon, David

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Conway, Derek

      Ashby, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Couchman, James

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Baldry, Tony

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Bates, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Day, Stephen

      Beith. Rt Hon A. J.

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Bellingham, Henry

      Devlin, Tim

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Booth, Hartley

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Boswell, Tim

      Dover, Den

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Duncan, Alan

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Dunn, Bob

      Bowden, Andrew

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bowis, John

      Dykes, Hugh

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Eggar, Tim

      Brazier, Julian

      Elletson, Harold

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Burns, Simon

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Burt, Alistair

      Evennett, David

      Butler, Peter

      Faber, David

      Butterfill, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      480

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Luff, Peter

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Forman, Nigel

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Forth, Eric

      MacKay, Andrew

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Maclean, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Maclennan, Robert

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Madel, David

      Freeman, Roger

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      French, Douglas

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Gale, Roger

      Malone, Gerald

      Gallie, Phil

      Mans, Keith

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Marland, Paul

      Garnier, Edward

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mates, Michael

      Gorst, John

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Merchant, Piers

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Milligan, Stephen

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hague, William

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hannam, Sir John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Harris, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Heald, Oliver

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hendry, Charles

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hicks, Robert

      Page, Richard

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Paice, James

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Horam, John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Redwood, John

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Richards, Rod

      Jack, Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Jackson. Robert (Wantage)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Sackville, Tom

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Key, Robert

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shersby, Michael

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Sims, Roger

      Knox, David

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Leigh, Edward

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lidington, David

      Spring, Richard

      Lightbown, David

      Sproat, Iain

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      481

      Steen, Anthony

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Stephen, Michael

      Walden, George

      Stern, Michael

      Wallace, James

      Stewart, Allan

      Waller, Gary

      Streeter, Gary

      Ward, John

      Sumberg, David

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sykes, John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Watts, John

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Wells, Bowen

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Whitney, Ray

      Thomason, Roy

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Willetts, David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Wolfson, Mark

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Wood, Timothy

      Tracey, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Trend, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

      Tyler, Paul

      Viggers, Peter

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 49

      COMMENCEMENT PROVISIONS
      'This Act shall take effect on the first day of January 1996 or on such earlier date as may be specified in any subsequent Act of Parliament as the date for the holding of a consultative referendum to establish whether or not majority opinion supports The Treaty on European Union.'.—[Mr. Gould.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 124, Noes 363.

      Division No. 248]

      [2.5 am

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Dunn, Bob

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Alton, David

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Barnes, Harry

      Fry, Peter

      Beggs, Roy

      Galloway, George

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gill, Christopher

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Gould, Bryan

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Graham, Thomas

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hall, Mike

      Callaghan, Jim

      Harvey, Nick

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Cann, Jamie

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Jessel, Toby

      Carttiss, Michael

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Cash, William

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Cohen, Harry

      Knapman, Roger

      Connarty, Michael

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Legg, Barry

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Leighton, Ron

      Cran, James

      Lewis, Terry

      Davidson, Ian

      Livingstone, Ken

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lord, Michael

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      McAllion, John

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      McKelvey, William

      482

      McWilliam, John

      Stevenson, George

      Madden, Max

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mahon, Alice

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marek, Dr John

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Marlow, Tony

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Tyler, Paul

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Mullin, Chris

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Pawsey, James

      Wallace, James

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wareing, Robert N

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Watson, Mike

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Rooney, Terry

      Whittingdale, John

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Wilkinson, John

      Rowlands, Ted

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Salmond, Alex

      Winnick, David

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Simpson, Alan

      Wise, Audrey

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wray, Jimmy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Austin Mitchell.

      Steinberg, Gerry

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Butler, Peter

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Butterfill, John

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Alexander, Richard

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Allen, Graham

      Carrington, Matthew

      Amess, David

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Ancram, Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clappison, James

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Ashby, David

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Coe, Sebastian

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Colvin, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Congdon, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Conway, Derek

      Baldry, Tony

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Barron, Kevin

      Cormack, Patrick

      Bates, Michael

      Couchman, James

      Batiste, Spencer

      Cousins, Jim

      Battle, John

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Bell, Stuart

      Darling, Alistair

      Bellingham, Henry

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Blair, Tony

      Day, Stephen

      Boateng, Paul

      Devlin, Tim

      Booth, Hartley

      Dewar, Donald

      Boswell, Tim

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Dixon, Don

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bowden, Andrew

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bowis, John

      Dover, Den

      Bradley, Keith

      Duncan, Alan

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Brazier, Julian

      Dykes, Hugh

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Eggar, Tim

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Elletson, Harold

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

      Enright, Derek

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Etherington, Bill

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Burns, Simon

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Burt, Alistair

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      483

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Evennett, David

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Faber, David

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Illsley, Eric

      Fatchett, Derek

      Ingram, Adam

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Jack, Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Forman, Nigel

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Forth, Eric

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Foulkes, George

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Key, Robert

      Fraser, John

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Freeman, Roger

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      French, Douglas

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Fyfe, Maria

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Gale, Roger

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Gallie, Phil

      Knox, David

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Garnier, Edward

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Garrett, John

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Leigh, Edward

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Lidington, David

      Gorst, John

      Lightbown, David

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Luff, Peter

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gunnell, John

      Macdonald, Calum

      Hague, William

      McFall, John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Maclean, David

      Hannam, Sir John

      McLeish, Henry

      Hanson, David

      Maclennan, Robert

      Hardy, Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      McNamara, Kevin

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Madel, David

      Harris, David

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Malone, Gerald

      Hayes, Jerry

      Mans, Keith

      Heald, Oliver

      Marland, Paul

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Henderson, Doug

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Hendry, Charles

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Heppell, John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Hicks, Robert

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Mates, Michael

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Meale, Alan

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Home Robertson, John

      Merchant, Piers

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Michael, Alun

      Horam, John

      Milburn, Alan

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Miller, Andrew

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Milligan, Stephen

      Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

      Mills, Iain

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      484

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Soames, Nicholas

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Moss, Malcolm

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Murphy, Paul

      Spring, Richard

      Nelson, Anthony

      Sproat, Iain

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Steen, Anthony

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Stephen, Michael

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Stern, Michael

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stewart, Allan

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Stott, Roger

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Ottaway, Richard

      Straw, Jack

      Page, Richard

      Streeter, Gary

      Paice, James

      Sumberg, David

      Patnick, Irvine

      Sykes, John

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Pendry, Tom

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pickles, Eric

      Thomason, Roy

      Pike, Peter L.

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Prescott, John

      Tipping, Paddy

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Radice, Giles

      Tracey, Richard

      Rathbone, Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      Redwood, John

      Trend, Michael

      Reid, Dr John

      Trotter, Neville

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Richards, Rod

      Vaz, Keith

      Riddick, Graham

      Viggers, Peter

      Robathan, Andrew

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Walden, George

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Waller, Gary

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Walley, Joan

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Ward, John

      Rogers, Allan

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Waterson, Nigel

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Watts, John

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Wells, Bowen

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Sackville, Tom

      Whitney, Ray

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Willetts, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wood, Timothy

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Worthington, Tony

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Yeo, Tim

      Shersby, Michael

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Short, Clare

      Sims, Roger

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkwood.

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again this day.

      Royal Prerogative
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
      2.20 am
      Mr. John Garrett: I wish briefly to explore the scope and limits of the royal prerogative and its present-day usage by the Government, and to put a number of questions to the hapless Minister who has the duty of answering the debate. I want to ask him about the profoundly undemocratic practice that allows a Government to act with royal absolutism.
      As I understand it, the royal prerogative denotes what remains of the monarch's power to legislate without the authority of Parliament. As the monarch acts on the advice of Government, the procedure enables a Government to produce primary legislation without parliamentary consent—legislation which, as was made clear by the GCHQ case, may not be challenged in the courts.
      Blackstone's 18th century "Commentaries on the Laws of England" referred to the prerogative as
      "that special pre-eminence which the King hath, over and above all other persons, and out of the course of the common law, in right of his royal dignity"—
      an arrangement that Blackstone described as
      "in its nature singular and eccentrical".
      In the past 10 years, some 1,400 orders have been made under the prerogative. Ministers usually imply that such orders relate to such quaint and innocuous matters as the grant and amendment of charters, and the appointment of visitors and governors of universities. Many do; but the prerogative is also applied to important international obligations and, in particular, to citizens' rights.
      The prerogative is used for the making of international treaties—which may be why from time to time, when it suits them, Ministers tell us that any Commons vote on the Maastricht treaty can be disregarded by the Government. It is also used for the declaration of war and blockade. The Government used it to commit British military forces in the Gulf war—prompting my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to observe:
      "this is the first time in the history of this country that British troops have been sent into battle under foreign command, using the royal prerogative of war-making to do so, without the House having had an opportunity to express its view on any motion other than that we adjourn".—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 616.]
      My right hon. Friend contrasted the handling of the matter in the House of Commons with the way in which both Houses of the United States Congress had debated and voted on a resolution on military action.
      The Government used prerogative powers to enable the United States military to bomb Libya from bases in England. That was a matter of awesome political importance, in which—once again—the House of Commons had no status. The prerogative is used for the control and organisation of the armed forces. In the matter of civil liberties, under the royal prerogative the Government can refuse or withdraw a passport, and can forbid a citizen to leave the country. There is no legal obligation on the Government to provide a passport, which I should have thought was a fundamental right of any citizen of this country.
      Jury vetting guidelines and telephone tapping are authorised by royal prerogative, apparently under an ancient royal right to intercept communications between
      486
      subjects. The criminal injuries compensation scheme was established by royal prerogative without statutory authority.
      Most notoriously in recent times, the royal prerogative was used in 1984 to ban from membership of trades unions the staff of the Government intelligence establishment GCHQ. In a subsequent court case on that subject, the Government argued successfully that not only were their powers not open to judicial review, but that instructions given in exercising them enjoyed the same immunity. This situation derived from the fact that the legal relationship between the Crown and civil or Crown servants is governed by the prerogative, and is unlike any normal contractual relationship between employer and employee. That explains why we in this country have yet to resolve the crucial issue whether the duty of a civil servant is to the national interest or to the Government, and why there is no protection for whistleblowers in the civil service.
      In any other country, the civil service would be regulated by a civil service Act that set out in law the rights, duties and constitutional position of civil servants. Here, the civil service is subject to the monarchical whims of some Minister. My first question to the Minister is, why cannot the civil service be governed by a civil service Act, and are the Clerks of this House also governed by the royal prerogative, rather than by legislation passed by the House?
      The royal prerogative is used for literally thousands of appointments in the public sector, and it is the fount of Government patronage. In 1965, Lord Reid observed:
      "it is not easy to discover and decide the law relating to the royal prerogative and the consequences of its exercise."
      He noted that there had been "practically no authority" on the matter since 1688.
      The most extensive discussion recently of the royal prerogative was by Professor Colin Munro in a publication in 1987. He wrote:
      "In practice … the supervision of prerogative powers does seem to be attended by greater than average difficulty. The very nature of these powers makes them less readily subject to challenge."
      He tells us that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, or ombudsman, has no power to examine decisions under the royal prerogative and says:
      "the exercise of prerogatives by the Attorney General may not be reviewed."
      He also says:
      "The correlation between the matters excluded from the Commissioner's jurisdiction and the spheres of activity in which governments exercise prerogative powers is striking."
      We also learn from Munro that the manner of the exercise of prerogative powers lies outside the scope of judicial review, so we are inevitably brought to the conclusion that a British subject may be deported, or refused a passport, or have his or her telephone tapped or mail opened by the state without legislative authority, and that neither Parliament nor the judiciary is entitled to examine the matter.
      The Minister will also know that subsidiary powers flow from the royal prerogative. The Crown's right to have admissible evidence withheld from a court when it claims that the public interest so demands has been known as Crown privilege although nowadays its existence is disputed. Does it exist, I ask the Minister, and what does it cover? Is there still such a concept in British law as Crown privilege which exempts the Crown from justiciable matters?

      487
      Crown immunity is certainly alive and kicking. The sovereign—and, therefore, the Government—still enjoy a number of immunities derived from the ancient "prerogative of perfection"—that is, "The King can do no wrong." What it means today is that Government Departments and many public bodies are not bound by a huge range of protective legislation, such as health and safety, food hygiene laws and planning and environmental regulations. I understand that that legislation does not, for example, protect those who work in the parliamentary precincts, let alone the hundreds of thousands of people in other public organisations. Therefore, to be employed in a public building means that one cannot be protected by a wide range of legislation.
      Munro concludes:
      "Behind the phrase "royal prerogative" lie hidden some issues of great constitutional importance, which are insufficiently recognised."
      It seems that the prerogative could be dispensed with almost entirely. The civil service and the military could be governed by Acts of Parliament, as in other countries. Telephone tapping, mail interception, deportation and entitlement to travel should be justiciable. Senior public appointments could be supervised by Select Committee. The Speaker could take over some prerogative powers, such as the dissolution of Parliament and the invitation to the leader of the party with the largest majority to form a Government.
      In a recent written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the Prime Minister said:
      "It is for individual Ministers to decide on a particular occasion whether and how to report to Parliament on the exercise of prerogative powers."—[Official Report, 1 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 19.]
      It is nothing less than a constitutional outrage that Ministers should decide whether to withhold matters from Parliament. It should be the Speaker's job to decide how the exercise of prerogative powers should be reported to the House. It should also be up to the Speaker to judge whether a Minister should answer to the House for the use of extra-statutory power.
      The royal prerogative is an anachronism—an example of the overweening and authoritarian power of Government over Parliament. In truth, the purpose of our Parliament is to provide a Government and to scrutinise their actions and decisions, but only to the extent that Government will allow. That is not good enough. The royal prerogative is a chilling manifestation of the way in which our democracy is deficient, and it should be mapped by the Select Committee on Procedure as soon as possible, and then largely ended.
      I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say about the boundaries of the royal prerogative and the extent to which as, I hope, a democrat he thinks that government by proclamation and diktat could be replaced by a proper legislative process.
      2.32 am.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) has shown interest in constitutional matters for 25 years. I know that because I have read the flyleaf of his book. I mean no disrespect in mentioning it. In the final paragraph on page 65, he uses the same quotation from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
      488
      Tonight the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of ministerial exercise of powers under the royal prerogative and implied that there is some abuse in the exercise of such powers. That is not the case, as I shall prove. I shall attempt to deal with most of the points that he has raised but, if there are any that I have not dealt with by the end of the debate, I shall write to him.
      As the hon. Gentleman knows, the history of the royal prerogative goes back to the middle ages, when the king was both feudal lord and head of the kingdom. He therefore had all the rights of a feudal lord and certain exceptional rights. The king could not be sued in his own courts and, in addition, had powers to defend the realm against enemies and an
      "undefined residue of power which he might use for the public good."
      It was the "undefined residue" of prerogative power which caused disputes when claimed by the Stuarts. Lawyers claimed then that there was a fundamental distinction between the ordinary and the absolute prerogative; the ordinary prerogative being those functions the king would exercise only in defined ways, which involved no element of discretion. Thus the king could dispense justice only through the judges, and make laws through Parliament.
      The absolute prerogative, on the other hand, the king's discretionary powers, were the powers on which Charles I relied in seeking to govern without Parliament. The conflict was resolved after the execution of one king and the expulsion of another.
      However, the problem still remained. It was resolved in two stages. The Bill of Rights of 1689 declared illegal certain specific uses and abuses of the prerogative, and since then there has been a growth in responsible government and the establishment of a constitutional monarchy. It became established that certain prerogative powers could be exercised only through and on the advice of Ministers responsible to Parliament.
      The royal prerogative has been described by a distinguished constitutional writer as an "attenuated remnant". The rights of Parliament to limit the prerogative are unrestricted. It is a one-way street. By definition, the scope of the prerogative is not greater now than it was in, say, 1979, and I have seen no convincing demonstration that the use of the prerogative is significantly different, or that practice in reporting such use to Parliament has changed.
      It is simply not the case that the royal prerogative has to a large extent got stuck in Whitehall, as the hon. Gentleman implied. The legislative authority of Parliament to limit prerogative powers is unlimited, and the extent of the prerogative has been steadily reduced over the years and cannot be increased. Such prerogative powers are residual and may be restricted or abolished by statute, and even where statute overlaps prerogative powers, the prerogative power falls into abeyance and the Crown from then on uses the statutory rather. than the prerogative power.
      The hon. Gentleman claims that the prerogative has been used some 1,400 times in the past 10 years and asks why, implying that the Government have abused their powers. The same powers have of course been used, in much the same way, by previous, Labour, Governments; indeed, they have been used by successive Governments.
      The hon. Gentleman cites in particular the declaration of war, the making of international treaties, and judicial

      489
      and civil service appointments. But it is inconceivable that any Government would declare war without being confident that they would command parliamentary support. The money needed to sustain the war could be voted only by Parliament.
      No sensible Government would take the risk of declaring war without being assured of parliamentary support. The events of 1939 and 1940, and the way in which this country fought that war as a democracy, changing the Prime Minister as a direct result of an expression of the feeling of the House, provide evidence of the flexibility and strength of our unwritten constitution.
      Treaties are published under the Ponsonby rule. It has been in use for nearly 70 years, including periods when the Labour party was in power. It applies to all treaties that are signed subject to ratification, and was born out of the desire to give Parliament the opportunity to examine such treaties before they were ratified. They include those which established NATO and the Western European Union, and more recently the Antarctic treaty, the Montreal protocol on the control of CFCs, and so on.
      The value of the procedure, and its effectiveness for allowing an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny and debate before ratification, is thus well proven, and has been accepted by successive Governments. Where a treaty cannot be ratified without making a change to domestic law, the full Bill procedure is required for that change to be made, as Members will be well aware from the debates on the Maastricht treaty, which is surely the most widely debated and closely analysed of any international treaty in recent memory.
      This country is rightly proud of the political neutrality of its civil service and of the independence of its judiciary. Those would not necessarily be strengthened if Parliament was involved in the appointments process. Judicial appointments are made either by a responsible Minister, as in the case of the Lord Chancellor, or, as in the case of the senior judiciary, by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. In the case of both civil service and judicial appointments, Ministers are accountable to Parliament through a substantive motion. The Civil Service Commission upholds and oversees the principle of appointment on merit through fair and open competition.
      The hon. Gentleman also questioned the use of the prerogative in the issue and refusal of passport facilities. Under the present system, United Kingdom passports are issued at the discretion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, exercising the royal prerogative.
      In practice, refusal of passport facilities to United Kingdom nationals is confined to certain well defined cateories, of which Parliament has been informed from time to time. Those are necessary in order to maintain the principle of discretion and to prevent it from being prejudiced by the criticism of arbitrary restriction of travel, which is created when a passport is refused.
      Although the issue of passports is a discretionary power under the royal prerogative, it is as constrained as any statutory power might be, and the exercise of the discretion may be reviewed by the courts. The system has
      490
      worked well, and it has been generally accepted that, under successive Administrations, that exercise of the royal prerogative has not been abused.
      Implicit in what the hon. Gentleman says is the notion that Governments are somehow secretive. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is leading a review of unnecessary secrecy, and the Government will be publishing a White Paper in the summer. However, I am not convinced that a charge of secretiveness about the use of the prerogative can be made to stick. The hon. Gentleman may ask why, if we are that open, we do not write down what all the prerogatives are.
      As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in the written answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the relationship between statutory powers and prerogative powers can be very complex, especially if the wider definition of the prerogative to which I referred earlier is used, and it would be impracticable to list all the occasions when action was taken under the prerogative. For example, every time a passport is issued, it is in fact an exercise of the prerogative. It would have been just as difficult to enumerate every action taken under statutory authority. There is very eminent authority for this view in Wade and Bradley on constitutional and administrative law. The 10th edition states:
      "Because of the diverse subjects covered by the prerogative, and because of the uncertainty of the law in many instances when an ancient power has not been used in modern times, it is not possible to give a comprehensive catalogue of prerogative powers".
      The scope of Orders in Council approved under the prerogative, on the other hand, is narrow. Most orders are made in exercise of statutory powers—that is, under powers delegated by Parliament. Prerogative orders consist essentially of: first, those recording the appointment or swearing of new Privy Councillors; secondly, and the largest number, those granting royal charters or approving changes to existing charters, which are made on the submission of the bodies themselves; thirdly, those directing the affixing of the great seal to proclamations —for example, proroguing or dissolving Parliament; and fourthly, those making certain appointments such as governors of the BBC.
      Those orders represent less than half the total made by the Queen in Council. The remainder are made under statutory powers, and are subject to such parliamentary procedures as are specified in the relevant Acts. They arc in exercise of a delegated authority to legislate given by Parliament, not an expression of the prerogative at all.
      The hon. Gentleman sees Crown immunity as an aspect of the prerogative. But the Government's policy on Crown immunity, as set out in the "Citizen's Charter" White Paper which deals with services to the public by Departments and Crown bodies, is to ensure that those bodies are not shielded from obligations placed upon others. That is consistent with the progressive removal of immunities from the health service. It is also consistent with the approach taken in the Food Safety Act 1990, which exposed the Crown to inspection and enforcement procedures, but not to criminal prosecution. A similar approach was followed in the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
      The Government gave a commitment in the "Citizen's Charter" White Paper that the same approach would be

      491
      followed in similar future legislation, retaining immunities only for special reasons, such as the protection of national security.
      At this point, I return to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about GCHQ. The Government's decision to remove the right of GCHQ staff to be members of the national civil service unions was taken because industrial disruption of GCHQ had been used by the national unions to put pressure on the Government in national civil service disputes. Between 1979 and 1981, 10,000 man days were lost disrupting an organisation whose continuous operation is vital to national security.
      The Government's objectives remain unchanged since 1984. However, there have been discussions with the Council of Civil Service Unions to look for an alternative solution that would meet the concerns of all parties. The exercise of prerogative powers is subject to judicial review and I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads the judgment of Lord Scarman in the GCHQ case. In general, if the question at issue is justiciable, the prerogative function will be subject to judicial review.
      So the approach is a progressive one. Opportunities are being taken as they arise to bring the Crown within regulatory provisions applying to other bodies. Where the Crown is not at present bound by existing requirements, Crown bodies are expected to comply as though requirements applied to them whenever this is appropriate and practicable.
      492
      In any parliamentary democracy, the Government must not be above the law and are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is open to Parliament to restrict the prerogative powers exercised by Ministers further, if it wishes to do so, by introducing new Acts of Parliament. However, there is no sensible option of a blanket approach, as the hon. Gentleman would like to see. The case must be made and considered specifically, and in each area.
      Mr. Garrett: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Wardle: I have finished.
      Mr. Garrett: The Minister trots out weasel words about the Government being able to remove prerogative powers as though it was democratic.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We have a slight procedural difficulty. The Minister having sat down, the hon. Member cannot have a second bite at the cherry.
      Mr. Garrett: I thought he had given way.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I realise that. It then became clear that he had not.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Three o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Duty Solicitors (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration he has given following the debate on the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order on 17 July 1989,Official Report, column 171, to introduce a statutory duty solicitor scheme in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Following the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order, the Law Society of Northern Ireland established panels of solicitors in all police divisions throughout the Province, who were prepared to offer their services to persons detained or attending voluntarily at police stations.

  In recognition of the PACE provisions and in order to ensure access to solicitors, regulations were made by the Lord Chancellor to coincide with the commencement of PACE, providing that persons detained or attending voluntarily at a police station should have legal advice and assistance without reference to their financial means and without contributions.

  In co-operation with the police and the Law Society, a survey was carried out by the Northern Ireland court service over the second six months of 1991, in respect of the availability of legal representation for persons detained or attending at police stations.

  The results of the research indicate that 34 per cent. of persons detained or attending police stations requested legal advice. Of these, 87 per cent. asked for a solicitor known to them; only 9 per cent.—or some 3 per cent. of the total—sought the services of a panel solicitor.

  This survey produced no evidence to suggest that there is a significant unmet demand for access to solicitors under the PACE Order. There is no present indication that a statutory scheme is required.

  High Court Judges
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of the recently proposed 10 new High Court judges will be women.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Once the necessary parliamentary approval has been obtained, the Lord Chancellor will make his recommendations on individual appointments to the Queen. He will be recommending those who are best qualified to fill each post regardless of sex. Women candidates are among those under consideration.

TRANSPORT

  Slough-Windsor Railway Line
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he is considering for privatisation of the Slough to Windsor railway branch line; and what steps he can take to protect the railway triangle at Slough for future rail use.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is our intention that all British Rail's passenger services will be franchised to private sector companies, including the Slough to Windsor branch line. We expect to make an announcement within the next few months about the form in which the remaining parts of the passenger rail network in Great Britain will be prepared for franchising. The area of land known as the Slough railway triangle is owned by British Rail. I understand that BR's plans for development on the triangle will not preclude possible future use if necessary in connection with a franchise of the Slough to Windsor line. A corridor of land will remain which would be sufficient for such purpose.

  Consultants
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those consultants currently engaged by his Department on projects related to rail privatisation, the nature of the projects and the cost thereof.

  Mr. Freeman
  The consultants and the nature of their work are:

  Linklaters and Paines—Legal issues

  Samuel Montagu and Co—Merchant Banking

  KPMG Peat Marwick—Accountancy

  Richard Ellis—Property matters

  Dewe Rogerson—Marketing

  Coopers and Lybrand—Access charges

  PJR—Management and organisation

  Most of these consultants are retained on hourly rates which must remain confidential for commercial reasons. The total costs, including completed and expected projects, for the financial years 1991–92, 1992–93 arid 1993–94 were given in my answer to the hon. Gentleman of Wednesday 24 February, Official Report, column 587. The final outturn for 1992–93 was £5·7 million.

  Aston Down
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what work is currently being carried out by the Civil Aviation Authority at the former Royal Air Force station Aston Down; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority facilities at Aston Down are used for the storage of air traffic control equipment.

  London Travelcard
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects his Department's working group on the future of the London travelcard to complete its deliberations; and if he will publish the results.

  Mr. Norris
  The working group is exploring with transport operators in both the public and the private sector how the London travelcard is most likely to adapt over the next few years to changes in the provision of
  95
  public transport services, including the franchising of rail services and the privatisation and deregulation of bus services. The conclusions will no doubt be reflected in the announcements which will in due course be made, in the usual way, about changes in the operators' fares.

NATIONAL FINANC

  Charities
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) pursuant to his answer of 17 February,Official Report, column 210, what consideration was given to the Charities Tax Reform Group proposals regarding the introduction of a value added tax refund scheme;

  (2) what plans the Government have to introduce a value added tax refund scheme for charities.

  Sir John Cope
  We considered this proposal very carefully. We concluded that it is better to foster a more favourable tax regime for charitable fund raising and charitable giving rather than introduce more reliefs based on charity spending. This policy provides the greatest benefit to charities perceived by givers to deserve most support rather than to those which happen to spend most on taxable goods and services in the United Kingdom. Total tax reliefs to charities now amount to almost £1 billion a year.

  Oil Taxation (Budget Confidentiality)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has of breaches of Budget confidentiality in relation to changes to the oil taxation regime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional provision for annual recurring public expenditure has been made as a result of rulings of the European Court of Justice in each year since the implementation of the Single European Act.

  Sir John Cope
  Information is not available on the financial consequences resulting from the rulings of the European Court of Justice or of any annual recurring public expenditure resulting from such rulings.

  Postal Services (VAT)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he estimates would be raised if(a) Parcelforce and (b) the Royal Mail were subject to value added tax.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 20 April 1993]: Businesses may reclaim VAT charged. On this basis, the estimated revenue effects are:

  (a) negligible.

  (b) £180 million.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to permitting the Post Office to reclaim value added tax, following the imposition of value added tax on intra-Community transport costs; and what is his estimate of the cost to the Post Office of value added tax on these costs.
  96
  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 20 April 1993]: The Post Office is registered for VAT purposes and is able to reclaim VAT incurred on its purchases subject to the normal rules. On the ground of commercial confidentiality, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the additional costs incurred by the Post Office as a result of the recent VAT changes in the treatment of intra-EC freight transport service.

  Domestic Fuel (VAT)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much extra a family with two children on half average earnings will pay per week, when value added tax on domestic fuel is increased to 17·5 per cent.

  Sir John Cope
  A family with two children on three quarters average earnings would pay about £2·30 per week additional tax, assuming 1993–94 levels of real earnings. Estimates outside the range of 75 to 150 per cent. of average earnings are not available because of the large margins of error associated with small sample sizes and large variations in spending patterns.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the increase in annual expenditure due to the introduction of 17·5 per cent. VAT on fuel assuming no behavioural changes for(a) someone on mean earnings, (b) someone on 75 per cent. of mean earnings, (c) someone on 50 per cent. of mean earnings, (d) someone on 150 per cent. of mean earnings, (e) each income decile of the population, (f) each income decile of households and (g) each income decile of families.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 1 April 1993]: The available information is given in the tables. The figures make no allowance for changes to expenditure patterns due to the introduction of VAT on domestic fuel and power.

  Table 1: increase in expenditure on fuel and power by a single person due to imposition of VAT at 17·5 per cent, in 1993–94 prices

  Percentage of average earnings

  £ per week

  75

  1·75

  100

  1·90

  150

  2·30

  Notes to table 1:

  1. The estimates are based on an equation relating expenditure on fuel and power to total spending derived from the 1991 Family Expenditure Survey and applied to 1993–94 price earnings levels and the 1993–94 income tax and NICs systems on the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved.

  2. Average earnings are taken to be average gross weekly earnings of all full time males on adult rates. This is assumed to be £359·80 per week in 1993–94, based on the illustrative earnings growth assumption of 4 per cent. in 1993–94.

  3. Estimates are not available outside the earnings range shown due to the large margin of error associated with small sample sizes and large variations in spending patterns.

  Table 2: increase in average household expenditure on fuel and power due to imposition of VAT at 17·5 per cent, in 1993–94 prices

  Deciles of household income

  £ per week

  1st

  2·00

  2nd

  1·95

  3rd

  2·10

  4th

  2·25

  5th

  2·35

  97

  Deciles of household income

  £ per week

  6th

  2·40

  7th

  2·35

  8th

  2·40

  9th

  2·45

  10th

  2·70

  Notes to table 2:

  1. Figures are based on the last three Family Expenditure Surveys, 1989 to 1991, uprated to 1.993–94 prices in line with the growth in consumers' expenditure.

  2. Households have been allocated to deciles on the basis of their net income in the survey period adjusted to take account of differences in family composition.

  3. Data on expenditure on fuel and power is only available at the level of the household.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total amount paid into the Treasury in VAT on domestic fuel in 1994–95 and 1995–96 by each income decile of(a) the population as a whole, (b) households and (c) families.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 1 April 1993.]: Table 4.1 of the 1993–94 Financial Statement and Budget Report estimates the projected yield in 1994–95 and 1995–96 from applying VAT to domestic fuel and power as £950 million and £2,300 million respectively. These figures take into account changes in expenditure patterns. They are not available at a decile level.

  VAT
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total amount paid into the Treasury in VAT in 1987–88, 1992–93 1994–95 and 1995–96(a) by the whole population, (b) by each income decile of the population, (c) by each income decile of households and (d) by each income decile of families.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 1 April 1993.]: Total net receipts of VAT in 1987–88 were £24,066 million—HM Customs and Excise annual report 1991–92—and are estimated to be £37,400 million in 1992–93—table 1.2, Financial Statement and Budget Report 1993–94. Estimates of total VAT receipts for 1994–95 and 1995–96, consistent with published estimates for 1992–93, are not available. Figures giving a breakdown of total VAT payments in 1987 by decile group are published En the article on the effects of taxes and benefits on household incomes in the May 1990 edition of Economic Trends. Similar figures for 1992–93 and later years are not available.

  Postal Services (VAT)
  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 October 1992,Official Report, c. 789 if he has yet held discussions with EC Finance Ministers or the Commission about the value added tax exemption for public postal services; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 20 April 1993]: There have been no such discussions and the reply of 29 October remains appropriate.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iran and Iraq (Weapons)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards export of lethal weapons for Iran and Iraq from 1979 to 1985; and if he will list each occasion on which changes in the policy were announced to the House.

  The Prime Minister
  Restrictions on the export of lethal weapons to Iran were introduced following the seizure of the American hostages in 1979. Restrictions were introduced on Iraq following the outbreak of the Iran/Iraq conflict in 1980. Guidelines applying to all deliveries of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq were introduced in December 1984. They were announced to the House on 29 October 1985 by my noble and learned Friend, Lord Howe of Aberavon, then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The guidelines were as follows:

  (i) we should maintain our consistent refusal to supply any lethal equipment to either side;

  (ii) subject to that overriding consideration, we should attempt to fulfil existing contracts and obligations;

  (iii) we should not, in future, approve orders for any defence equipment which, in our view, would significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict;

  (iv) in line with this policy, we should continue to scrutinise rigorously all applications for export licences for the supply of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq.

  Liverpool
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Liverpool in the near future.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him yesterday at column 178.

WALES

  Community Care
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many copies of his Department's report, "Community Care—Information Pack for the Voluntary and Private Sectors", have been published; to which organisations it has been distributed; and at what cost.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Three thousand copies of the Welsh Office information pack for the voluntary and private sectors have been published. Packs have been distributed to social services departments, health authorities, family health services authorities, voluntary organisations, and residential and nursing homes in Wales. The total costs of producing and distributing the pack have not yet been finalised, but are expected to be around £22,000.

EDUCATION

  Further Education (Special Needs)
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what arrangements there are to ensure that (i) support needs, (ii) transport needs and (iii) maintenance costs of students with disabilities and learning difficulties in further education will be met.
  99
  Mr. Boswell
  The duties on the further education funding councils and local education authorities to secure further education provision for students with disabilities and learning difficulties require them to take acount of their additional learning support needs. LEAs' duties and powers concerning the provision of transport now include students at colleges in the new further education sector. Students attending courses of further education may apply to their LEA for a discretionary award in respect of their maintenance costs, and full-time and sandwich students aged 19 or over may also seek assistance from the further education access funds.

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many specialist independent colleges for students with disabilities and learning difficulties in England and Wales make further education provision.

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent in England on provision for students with disabilities and learning difficulties in maintained further education colleges in 1992–93; and how much he estimates will be spent by (i) the Further Education Funding Council for England, (ii) training and enterprise councils, (iii) local education authorities and (iv) social services departments on such provision in 1993–94.

  Mr. Boswell
  It is for the various agencies involved in securing provision for students with learning difficulties and disabilities to determine what resources they should allocate to further education colleges for this purpose. It is not possible to estimate expenditure on such provision, given the discretion generally available to colleges over the use of resources.

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent on further provision for students with disabilities and learning difficulties from England in specialist independent colleges in 1993; and how much he estimates will be spent by (i) the Further Education Funding Council for England, (ii) training and enterprise councils, (iii) local education authorities and (iv) social services departments on such provision in 1993–94.

  Road scheme

  Roads which will benefit from each scheme

  Typical daily traffic figure

  (a) Comber By-Pass

  A22 Killinchy Road, Comber

  4,100

  A22 Belfast Road, Comber

  9,525

  A21 Newtownards Road, Comber

  14,700

  (b) Balloo Road, Bangor

  Balloo Road (Gransha end)

  14,925

  Stage 3

  Balloo Road (Rathgael end)

  10,300

  (c) A5 Burndennet

  Route A5

  7,100

  (d) Anne Street/Thomas Street Dungannon

  Market Street, Dungannon

  8,400

  (e) A5 Magheramason

  Route A5

  7,100

  (f) A5 Leckpatrick

  Route A5

  7,100

  (g) Antrim/Ballymena Stage 2

  Route A26

  18,500

  (h) Greenmount Link, Coleraine

  Dunhill Road

  15,325

  Castlerock Road

  5,400

  Strand Road

  10,500

  Laurel Hill/Killowen Street

  7,000

  (i) Omagh Through-Pass Stage 2

  Derry Road

  15,000

  100
  Mr. Boswell
  It is for the various agencies involved in securing provision for students with learning difficulties and disabilities to determine what resources they should allocate to specialist independent colleges for this purpose. Information on their funding of these institutions is not available centrally.

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many further education students with disabilities and learning difficulties from England in 1992–93 were attending (i) maintained colleges and (ii) specialist independent colleges; and how many of each of these are expected in 1993–94 to be the responsibility of(a) the Further Education Funding Council and (b) local education authorities.

  Mr. Boswell
  In 1991–92, the latest year for which data are available, there were 42,000 further education students classified as having special educational needs attending maintained further education colleges. It is not possible to specify the proportion that will be the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council or local education authorities from 1993–94.

  Information about specialist independent colleges is not available centrally.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Traffic Density
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the traffic density revealed in the latest traffic surveys for roads which will benefit from(a) the Comber bypass, (b) the Balloo road stage 3 Bangor, (c) the A5 Burndennett, (d) the Ann street/Thomas street, Dungannon, (e) the A5 Magheramason, (f) the A5 Leckpatrick, (g) the Antrim/Ballymena stage 2, (h) the Greenmount link, Coleraine, (i) the Omagh throughpass stage 2, (j) the Belfast urban area plan roads (95/96) and (k) the Belfast urban area plan roads (96/97) road schemes.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is as follows:
  101

  Road scheme

  Roads which will benefit from each scheme

  Typical daily traffic figure

  (j) Purdysburn Road Stage 1

  Purdysburn Road

  9,000

  (k) (1) Ballymachonaghy Road

  Ballymaconaghy Road

  1,600

  (2) Forster Green Junction

  Total traffic using junction

  50,000

  (3) Balmoral Avenue/Malone Road Junction

  Total traffic using junction

  39,400

  Unemployment Schemes
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the schemes operated by Government Departments in Northern Ireland which are designed to alleviate unemployment amongst school leavers; how many benefited from each scheme since its inception; and how many obtained permanent employment as a result.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. Peter Robinson, dated 16 April 1993:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he would list the schemes operated by government departments in Northern Ireland which are designed to alleviate unemployment amongst school leavers; how many benefited from each scheme since its inception; and how many obtained permanent employment as a result. The Secretary of State has passed your questions to me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, for reply.
  I take it that your question refers to labour market measures. The relevant schemes are the Youth Training Programme (YTP), the Job Training Programme (JTP) and the Action for Community Employment Programme (ACE). Through YTP, all 16 and 17 year olds who leave school and are unable to find employment are guaranteed a structured programme of directed and workplace training, lasting up to 2 years, to enable them to compete for available jobs. I have detailed below the average number who each year have benefited from YTP since its inception in 1982 and the number whose destinations are known and who left to take up employment.

  Average occupancy

  Leavers to employment

  1982–831

  8,035

  214

  1983–84

  7,242

  3,168

  1984–85

  7,381

  5,017

  1985–86

  8,079

  5,500

  1986–87

  8,658

  5,686

  1987–88

  8,776

  5,787

  1988–89

  8,880

  6,428

  1989–90

  9,818

  6,767

  1990–91

  12,914

  4,223

  1991–92

  15,480

  5,754

  1992–93

  13,793

  6,672

  109,056

  55,216

  1 September—March.

  Progression into full-time education is also considered a positive outcome for young people. In 1992–93 11% of trainees entered full-time education immediately after leaving YTP.
  102
  The Job Training Programme and Action for Community Employment also provide training and employment opportunities to school leavers who are 18 years of age or over and who have been unemployed for 6 months or more. Total participation in these programmes and employment placements were as follows:

  Job Training Programme

  Year

  Average Occupancy

  Leavers to Employment

  1988–989

  517

  119

  1989–990

  1,743

  600

  1990–991

  2,341

  1,543

  1991–992

  2,912

  1,813

  1992–993

  13,930

  11,940

  1 These are estimated outturn figures based on February 1993 figures.

  Action for Community Employment

  Year

  Average Occupancy

  Leavers to Employment

  1981–82

  430

  1—

  1982–83

  1,270

  1—

  1983–84

  2,525

  1—

  1984–85

  3,090

  1—

  1985–86

  3,890

  1—

  1986–87

  6,150

  1—

  1987–88

  6,200

  1—

  1988–89

  8,600

  2,494

  1989–90

  10,000

  3,420

  1990–91

  10,000

  2,750

  1991–92

  10,000

  2,800

  1992–93

  9,600

  2—

  1 No figures prior to 1989.

  2 Not yet available.

  Unfortunately our records do not differentiate between school leavers and other adult participants of these programmes and I am therefore unable to give you a breakdown of these figures.

  I hope that this information is of help.

  Water Executive
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations took place about the establishment of the Water Executive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The establishment of the Water Executive was simply an administrative change of title introduced following the Government's announcement of their intention to privatise water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland. Consultation was not therefore necessary.

  Disability (Grants) Bill
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how he intends to fund the Independent Living (Extension) Fund, the Independent Living (1993) Fund and Motability before the enactment of the Disability (Grants) Bill.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Disability (Grants) Bill currently before Parliament will allow the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland to make grants to certain named organisations that help disabled people lead a more independent life in the community. These organisations are the Independent Living (Extension) Fund, the Independent Living (1993) Fund and Motability.

  Parliamentary approval of expenditure on grant in aid to the Independent Living Funds will be sought in the 1993–94 main estimate for centrally administered social security (Department of Health and Social Services, vote 5).

  Approval for expenditure on a grant to Motability will be sought in the 1993–94 main estimate for administration and miscellaneous services (Department of Health and Social Services, vote 3).

  Pending approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £3,100,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Northern Ireland civil contingencies fund.

ENVIRONMENT

  Waste Management
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on responses received on his Department's Waste Management Paper 26A, published in December 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  This paper was issued in draft as part of a second package of consultation documents concerning the new waste management licensing system to be introduced by regulations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. When published, it will give guidance to waste regulation authorities on how to determine whether to accept the surrender of a licence for a landfill site.

  Responses to the draft focused on three main issues: the criteria against which the degree of completion of a site should be judged; the amount of analysis required to assess whether a site is complete and the consequent cost to industry; and problems related to liability after a completion certificate is issued by the authority. In the light of the responses, the Department is revising the paper prior to publication.

  Hazardous Chemicals
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the conditions under which planning consent for the storage of hazardous chemicals under the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 may become unnecessary if the responsible party managing the chemicals deems them to be a waste material.

  Mr. Baldry
  The controls in the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 do not apply to the presence of 104
  substances which are controlled wastes, as defined in section 75(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, or radioactive wastes, as defined in section 18(4) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. This is to avoid an unnecessary duplication of statutory control.

  Environmental Sustainability
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies on environmental sustainability he has commissioned since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Maclean
  Much of my Department's research programme relates to questions of environmental sustainability. In addition, we commissioned six background studies for a recent seminar on sustainable development at Green college, Oxford. I shall place copies of these studies, together with the record of the seminar, in the Library.

  Sewer Pipes
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to make water companies liable for flood damage from sewer pipes.

  Mr. Maclean
  Following proposals made by the Director General of Water Services, the Water Supply and Sewerage Services (Customer Service Standards) (Amendment) Regulations 1993, SI.1993 No. 500, which came into effect on 1 April 1993, extended the scope of the water industry's guaranteed standards scheme to provide, among other measures, for the refund of annual sewerage charges, up to a maximum of £1,000, paid by customers who suffer foul flooding of their property. I welcome these improvements to the generally good services that the water companies provide for their customers.

  Nuclear Power Industry
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what role his Department will be playing in the planned review of the nuclear power industry.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make an announcement about the planned review later in the year.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of local authority tenants not in receipt of housing benefit for each local authority in Northamptonshire.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department collects information on housing benefit caseload, and this gives an indication of the numbers of tenants not on housing benefit as summarised in the accompanying table. Any further queries concerning the data should be directed to the local authority concerned.
  105

  Average data for 1992–93

  (i) Local authority

  (ii) Estimate of tenants (dwellings minus vacancies)

  (iii) Housing benefit caseload

  (iv) Tenants not receiving housing benefit (ii)-(iii)

  Corby

  7,792

  3,696

  4,096

  Daventry

  4,085

  2,200

  1,885

  East Northants

  4,721

  2,450

  2,271

  Kettering

  4,940

  3,250

  1,690

  Northampton

  15,793

  9,245

  6,548

  South Northants

  3,802

  2,100

  1,702

  Wellingborough

  6,009

  3,365

  2,644

  Northamptonshire

  47,142

  26,306

  20,836

  Energy Savings Trust
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial contribution has been agreed from his Department for the work of the Energy Savings Trust.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 19 February 1993,Official Report, column 382.

  Nematodes
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of developments in biological control methods of nematodes to kill slugs.

  Mr. Maclean
  No formal assessment of the proposed use of indigenous nematodes to kill slugs has been made. Their use in biological control is not covered by the Control of Pesticides Regulations (1986). The release of non-indigenous species for this purpose would be controlled by the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981).

  My Department is considering with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other Departments whether there is a need for additional controls in this area.

  Aggregates
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made as to the accuracy of past forecasts of aggregate demand.

  Mr. Baldry
  The long-term projections of demand are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that they are as accurate as possible. The accuracy of the projection used as a basis for the present MPG6 was assessed in 1989.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been given to the use of economic instruments to raise the price of primary aggregates and lower the price of secondaries in order to provide substitution between them.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government have no plans at present to use economic instruments either to raise the price of primary aggregates or lower the price of secondaries.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost to his Department of all aggregates forecasts commissioned from ECOTEC in the last four years.
  106
  Mr. Baldry
  The work undertaken by ECOTEC over the four-year period cost £38,125. Additional work by Cambridge Econometrics on long-term economic projections cost £9,100.

  Minerals Planning
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration was given to the inclusion of an element of demand management in the proposed revision of minerals planning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government's views on demand management for aggregates were set out in the policy issues paper, which was issued with the consultation draft of mineral planning guidance note 6 in January.

  Imports
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for which imports to industry, other than aggregates, policy is based on detailed 20-year forecasts of supply and demand.

  Mr. Baldry
  Long-term projections of demand are used to inform the preparation of planning guidance issued by my Department for the minerals used in cement making and for silica sand.

  Local Government Staff Commission
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to establish the local government reorganisation staff commission; whom he intends to appoint as its members; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. and learned Friend has today laid an order, made under section 23 of the Local Government Act 1992, to set up a staff commission. The commission, to be known as the Local Government Staff Commission (England), will be established formally on 13 May 1993.

  I am inviting the following people to serve as members of the Local Government Staff Commission (England):

  Alan Atherton

  Colin Jeynes

  Judith Lovelace

  I have asked Mr. Atherton to serve as chairman.

  This is a strong, independent commission whose members have a range of experience in local government and staffing matters.

  Environmental Health Officers
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of vacancies for environmental health officer posts in each year from 1979 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not held centrally.

  Telecommunications Systems
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to ensure that applications for the siting of telecommunications
  107
  systems on public and private property are determined by relevant local authority planning committees with a right to refuse permission.

  Mr. Baldry
  Like other types of development, the installation of telecommunications equipment is subject to planning control. The degree of control depends on the scale of the development. Accordingly, major telecommunications developments require a full planning application and are subject to normal planning control. Other telecommunications developments benefit from a general permission granted by the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988, as amended, provided that they are carried out in accordance with conditions set out in that order. Local planning authorities may require a planning application to be made in respect of development that would otherwise be permitted, by serving a direction under article 4 of that order; they may be a resulting compensation liability.

  We published policy guidance on telecommunications development and an explanation of the operation of permitted development rights for telecommunications equipment, in planning policy guidance note 8, "Telecommunications". That note was published to coincide with the implementation of improved controls from 4 January this year, and following public consultation. We have no plans for any further review.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chile
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions since 1980(a) Mr. Carlos Cardoen and (b) Mr. Mark Thatcher visited the British embassy in Chile; and what was the date and purpose of each of those visits.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Mr. Carlos Cardoen has made two visits, each at his request. In May 1990, he expressed concern over media reports linking him to the death of Mr. Jonathan Moyle. In July 1992, he discussed his commercial relationship with British companies.

  We have no record of any visit by Mr. Mark Thatcher.

  British Manufacturing and Research Company
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the relationship between his Department and BMARC in the period from 1980 to 1992.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The answer to this question could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Hong Kong
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to ensure that the Governor's recent proposals regarding the future composition of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong remain available for consideration by the Legislative Council without amendment.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Governor's proposals for the 1994–95 electoral arrangement in Hong Kong, which the Government support, remain on the table.
  108
  It will in due course be up to the Hong Kong Legislative Council to pass the necessary legislation taking all relevant factors into account.

  We have said that if we succeed in reaching an acceptable understanding with China we would recommend it to the Legislative Council.

  An essential point for us, and for the Governor, is that these elections should be fair, open and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 5 April.

  Mr. Hurd
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office represented the United Kingdom at the Foreign Affairs Council on 5 April.

  The Council agreed a revised mandate for negotiations on a partnership and co-operation agreement with Russia. This holds out the prospect of a free trade area as a long-term objective. The Council adopted a negotiating mandate for association agreements with the Czech and Slovak Republics. The Council agreed to open accession negotiations with Norway. The negotiations were later launched in the margins of the Council. The Council also agreed a trade and co-operation agreement and financial protocol with Slovenia. Signature of both instruments, and of a transport agreement, took place in the margins.

  Sir Leon Brittan reported to the Council on the Commission's recent meetings with United States trade representative Kantor. The Council expressed its full support for the Commission's efforts to find negotiated solutions to individual trade disputes with the United States.

  Ministers discussed relations with the European Parliament. The presidency undertook to push for conclusion of an inter-institutional agreement on subsidiarity, and also to take forward work on the European ombudsman. Member states are now discussing the European Parliament's draft proposals on how the ombudsman might function when the treaty of Maastricht enters into force.

  The presidency and Commission reported on the troika visit to the middle east.

  Foreign Ministers discussed latest developments in the former Yugoslavia, following a briefing from Lord Owen. They underlined the importance of all three parties accepting, and implementing, the Vance-Owen plan. Its continued repudiation by the Bosnian Serbs would have the most severe consequences and lead to the total international isolation of Serbia-Montenegro. Ministers welcomed the United Nations Security Council's preparation of a draft resolution supporting the peace plan and strengthening the sanctions regime, and a decision by WEU Ministers earlier that day to tighten enforcement of the United Nations embargo on the Danube. The Community and its member states would continue to make sanctions more effective. Ministers issued a statement to this effect, which also emphasised their concern about the humanitarian situation in Bosnia and especially the importance of immediate free access for help to eastern Bosnia.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  EC Directive
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to implement article 27 of the Council directive 92/50/EEC in relation to his Department.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This article, along with the rest of the Council directive 92/50/EEC, comes into force on 1 July this year and will be fully implemented by the Home Office.

  Prostitution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to discuss with the chief constable of South Yorkshire the problems of prostitution in the county; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I have no plans to do so at the moment. The investigation of offences is an operational matter for which the chief constable is responsible.

  Reason for temporary release

  Prisoner security category

  B

  C

  D

  Female

  Total

  Compassionate (funerals, visits to the terminally ill, marriage etc.)

  27

  386

  138

  32

  583

  Medical (outpatient treatment at outside hospital)

  140

  710

  222

  164

  1,236

  Education, training, work (including college courses, working out, job interviews)

  75

  3,174

  797

  684

  4,730

  Other

  10

  1,104

  575

  38

  1,727

  Total

  252

  5,374

  1,732

  918

  8,276

  Prison Service (Contracting Out)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated value of the contract of the warehousing and distribution function of the supply and transport division of the prison service.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 April 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Question about the value of the contract for the warehousing and distribution and function of the Supply and Transport Division of the Prison Service.
  As you will know, it was not possible to negotiate a satisfactory contract with Beck & Pollitzer, who were the contractors originally selected. A service level agreement was therefore awarded to the in-house operation, who were the next best bidders. The operating budget for the warehousing and distribution function is approximately £5·5 million over the 3-year life of the agreement.
  110

  Prisoners (Temporary Leave)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of prisoners given temporary leave from prison, by category of reason for that leave, in the last full year when records were maintained; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Robert Spink, dated 20 April 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Question about the number of prisoners given temporary leave from prison establishments in England and Wales.
  The information which you have requested is not collected on a regular basis centrally at present. A three month survey of the numbers of temporary releases, other than for home leave, was however undertaken between 1 April and 30 June 1991. During this period, the number of temporary releases was 8,276, broken down as shown in the table below. The number of releases is not the same as the number of prisoners given temporary release, since the same prisoner may have been given temporary release on a number of occasions during the period; for example, for outpatient treatment or for job interviews.

  Doncaster Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a prison service bid for Doncaster prison will be sought during the tendering exercise this spring.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No decision has yet been made.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance will be given to Home Office businesses which will be involved in in-house bids during the market testing period from September 1993 to March 1995.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  A variety of guidance notes are available, together with access to professional specialisms within the Home Office to enable in-house teams to construct their bids. In addition, limited funds are available to enable Home Office businesses to seek targeted external consultancy assistance where internal resources are unavailable.

  European Parliament
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the method he intends to adopt to define the boundaries of new seats for the European Parliament.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Yes, we intend to publish our proposals in due course.

  Prisoner Escort Service
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners escaped from(a) prison and (b) court escort in each court region per month in 1990, 1991 and 1992 and each month in 1993 to date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 19 April 1993]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange a reply.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 April 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking how many prisoners escaped from (a) prison and (b) court escort in each court region per month in 1990, 1991, 1992 and each month in 1993.
  The number of prisoners who escaped from prison month by month in each of 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 is as follows:

  Escapes from prison

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  January

  5

  18

  11

  12

  February

  3

  29

  29

  10

  March

  15

  6

  18

  19

  April

  22

  26

  25

  18

  May

  19

  29

  27

  —

  June

  11

  37

  24

  —

  July

  20

  32

  11

  —

  August

  18

  24

  13

  —

  September

  13

  27

  24

  —

  October

  17

  23

  31

  —

  November

  31

  30

  26

  —

  December

  21

  22

  15

  —

  Total

  195

  303

  254

  59

  I regret that the full information that you require in part (b) of your question is not readily available and could only be gathered at disproportionate cost. The information is recorded against individual prisons rather than court catchment areas and many prisons serve a number of court catchment areas. Information is not available centrally on escapes from court escorts staffed by the police.

  The total number of escapes from Prison Service escorts are as follows:

  Escapes from Escort

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  January

  12

  11

  14

  14

  February

  11

  7

  8

  13

  March

  11

  8

  15

  13

  April

  13

  18

  9

  11

  May

  10

  19

  6

  —

  June

  3

  3

  12

  —

  July

  6

  17

  12

  —

  August

  15

  9

  9

  —

  September

  3

  6

  13

  —

  October

  7

  14

  13

  —

  November

  12

  16

  20

  —

  December

  16

  16

  16

  —

  TOTAL

  119

  144

  147

  51

  112
  Within the above figures and from information available, the number of prisoners who escaped from court escorts are as follows:

  Escapes from court escort

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  January

  7

  6

  11

  8

  February

  5

  2

  3

  7

  March

  6

  3

  7

  3

  April

  6

  8

  5

  5

  May

  1

  14

  —

  —

  June

  2

  1

  6

  —

  July

  1

  10

  5

  —

  August

  6

  4

  3

  —

  September

  1

  4

  3

  —

  October

  3

  7

  8

  —

  November

  4

  9

  3

  —

  December

  8

  8

  3

  —

  Total

  50

  76

  60

  23

  The figures for 1993 are up to and including 16 April 1993.

  The above information is derived from incidents reported to the Incident Management Support Unit, a part of the Directorate of Custody.

  I hope the above information is of use to you.

  Mr. Don Treshman
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the arrest and detention without charge of Mr. Don Treshman.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 20 April 1993]: Mr. Treshman was served on 29 March with a notice of intention to deport him on the ground that his continued presence in the United Kingdom was not conducive to the public good. He was also detained by virtue of a detention order made under paragraph 2(2) of schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971. Mr. Treshman has appealed to the independent immigration appeal tribunal against the deportation decision, and applied to the tribunal for bail pending the hearing of the appeal. Bail was granted on 1 April subject to conditions.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in implementing declaration 17 on the right to access to information attached to the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I have been asked to reply.

  We understand that the Commission intends to put a paper to the Copenhagen European Council in June containing recommendations to the Council on how to implement the Maastricht declaration on the right of access to information.

SCOTLAND

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the vessels holding pressure stock licences registered in each Scottish port of registration in each of the past four years, and at the latest convenient date in 1993.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Information on the licensing of individual vessels is commercial in confidence. The
  113
  number of vessels holding pressure stock licences in the years 1989 to 1992, and in 1993, as at 16 April, by Scottish port of registration, is shown in the table.

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993 (at 16 April)

  Aberdeen

  34

  33

  37

  29

  32

  Alloa

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Arbroath

  30

  30

  26

  22

  22

  Ayr

  8

  8

  10

  11

  22

  Ballantrae

  73

  71

  72

  77

  69

  Banff

  110

  108

  108

  114

  117

  Broadford

  16

  16

  16

  19

  17

  Buckie

  105

  104

  96

  94

  85

  Campbeltown

  38

  31

  37

  37

  25

  Castlebay

  6

  14

  14

  16

  16

  Dumfries

  1

  1

  2

  3

  2

  Dundee

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fraserburgh

  110

  108

  136

  133

  136

  Inverness

  100

  105

  96

  91

  90

  Kirkcaldy

  48

  52

  49

  50

  48

  Kirkwall

  29

  30

  25

  28

  25

  Leith

  84

  82

  83

  81

  80

  Lerwick

  74

  73

  68

  67

  64

  Methil

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Montrose

  8

  8

  8

  7

  8

  Oban

  54

  47

  60

  61

  59

  Peterhead

  126

  118

  117

  119

  121

  Rothesay

  4

  8

  7

  11

  10

  Stornoway

  3

  40

  45

  48

  53

  Tarbert

  23

  14

  26

  26

  26

  Troon

  1

  2

  1

  2

  2

  Ullapool

  22

  24

  26

  31

  31

  Wick

  35

  30

  32

  26

  26

  Total

  1,144

  1,158

  1,198

  1,206

  1,188

  Scottish Renewables Obligation
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish the Scottish renewables order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  I hope to make an announcement about the question of a Scottish renewables obligation later in the year.

  Used Tyres (Incineration)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment his Department carries out on the environmental impact of the waste-to-energy process involving the incineration of used tyres.

  Sir Hector Monro
  In determining any application made to him for authorisation in respect of a process involving the incineration of tyres for the production of energy the chief inspector of Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate would consider the environmental impact of the proposed process. Guidance on the criteria he would use in assessing an application is available in process guidance note IPR 1/6: "Combustion Processes —combustion of fuel manufactured from or comprised of tyres, tyre rubber or similar rubber waste in appliances with a net rated thermal input of 3 MW or more." The note is published by HMSO.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Travel Agents and Tour Operators
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further steps he is taking to ensure that travel agents and tour operators have sufficient funds to cover their commitments in the event of their ceasing to trade.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further steps he is taking to ensure that travel agents and tour operators have sufficient funds to cover the risk of collapse.

  Mr. Leigh
  No further steps are being taken. The Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 require that organisers and/or retailers should at all times be able to provide sufficient evidence of security for the refund of money paid over and for the repatriation of the consumer in the event of insolvency.

  Post Office
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the planned change in the Post Office contribution to Government finances between(a) 1990–91 to 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94 to 1995–96.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) earlier today.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his plans to privatise the Post Office.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what his plans are for the future of the Post Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) earlier today.

  Motor Car Industry
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on the state of the United Kingdom motor car industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There has been a major expansion in the production capacity of the car industry in the United Kingdom. Exports are holding up well in a difficult European market.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer of 17 March,Official Report, column 271, how many additional pages of evidence his Department has submitted to Lord Justice Scott's inquiry in relation to exports to Iraq.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department is continuing to supply material in response to ongoing requests from Lord Justice Scott.

  Post Offices (Pension Payments)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average turnover in rural post offices of retirement pension payments and benefits in the last year for which figures are available.
  115
  Mr. Heseltine
  Rural offices differ significantly in size. The payment value of pension and benefit transactions is estimated as ranging between £30,000 and £500,000 per annum.

  Red Tape
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's seven private sector task forces for cutting the burden of red tape on industry.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The seven private sector task forces are now at work. More than 50 business men and women have committed themselves to giving half a day a week to identifying priority areas for the repeal or reform of regulations and making recommendations on how to ensure a continuing business voice in Government decision-making. The task forces are taking evidence from interested bodies and will be reporting regularly to Ministers during their six months period of operation.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to monitor the effect of EC regulations on small and medium-sized businesses.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The United Kingdom Government will continue to fight in Brussels to avoid unnecessary EC regulations. During our presidency, we secured agreement to a resolution which places pressure on the Commission to take full account of the impact on businesses, and particularly small and medium sized businesses, when drafting its proposals. We will build upon this foundation and ensure that all proposals listed in the European Commission's legislative programme likely to have a substantial impact upon United Kingdom business, are subjected to rigorous examination.

  The Government have established a scrutiny of the formulation, implementation and enforcement of EC law in the United Kingdom with the aim of minimising the burdens on United Kingdom businesses, including smaller businesses.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received about the need of reduce the burden of regulations on small firms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department continues to receive, and act on, representations about regulatory burdens on small firms both from individual firms and representative bodies.

  As part of the deregulation initiative to reduce the burden of regulations on business, my Department has recently set up seven task forces of business men, organised on a sectoral basis. The task forces, which include representatives from small firms, will advise Ministers on priorities for repeal and simplification with special reference to the needs of small businesses.

  Post Offices (Closures)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many post offices closed in 1992; and how many he expects to close in 1993.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I understand from the Post Office that in the years 1991–92 and 1992–93 there were net reductions,116
  through closures, of 148 and 202 post offices respectively. The majority of closures occur when the subpostmaster or subpostmistress retires or resigns and Post Office Counters Ltd. is unable to find a suitable replacement.

  Textile Exports
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to promote the export of British textiles and clothing.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department, jointly with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, provides a wide range of export advice and support which is available to all sectors of United Kingdom industry. I am pleased to say that the clothing and textile industry are major users of our export services.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his latest estimate of the deficit in trade of manufactured goods for the last 12 months in respect of which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom had a deficit in trade of manufactured goods of £7·6 billion in 1992.

  With the completion of the single market at the end of 1992, routine border requirements and formalities were abolished for trade within the European Community and customs declarations—the source of trade statistics until December 1992—are no longer required. Therefore, at present, it is not possible to provide figures for trade with the European Community for January 1993 onwards.

  Detailed statistics on United Kingdom trade in manufactures are regularly published in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", which is available in the Library of the House.

  Japanese Inward Investment
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the factors influencing Japanese inward investment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Many factors influence Japanese inward investment into the United Kingdom and worldwide. Britain's advantages include a strong industrial infrastructure, a large and sophisticated domestic market, a skilled and dedicated work force and a communication system geared for the modern trading world. These factors have contributed to Britain having almost 41 per cent. of the stock of Japanese foreign direct investment into Europe, according to Japanese Ministry of Finance figures.

  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on the impact of the new arrangements for petroleum revenue tax on the offshore industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  Tax issues are a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, to date, I have received around 50 separate representations, both written and oral, from companies, organisations and individuals in the oil and gas industry, mainly about the impact of the changes on exploration and appraisal activity and the future development of the North sea.

  Companies (Receivership)
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies have been placed into receivership since 1989 in the north-west region.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies have been placed into receivership since 1989 in the west midlands region.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  There is no regional breakdown of official statistics on companies placed into receivership. The total number of companies placed into receivership, in England and Wales, during the three years from 1 April 1989 was 16,096.

  Timeshare Contracts
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to outlaw downpayments on the signing of timeshare contracts following the meeting of the EC Consumer Council on 2 March.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have no such plans. A ban on clown payments in timeshare contracts before the end of any cooling-off period is, however, among the proposals being discussed in the context of the negotiation of the draft timeshare directive.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the President of the Boa rd of Trade what recent assessment he has made of movements in the United Kingdom's balance of trade during the past 14 years.

  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom current account deficit as a percentage of GDP has averaged 0·6 per cent. over the last 14 years.

  In 1992, the United Kingdom had a current account deficit of £11·8 billion, equivalent to 2·3 per cent. of GDP. The deficit has been falling since 1989, when it peaked at 4·9 per cent. of GDP.

  The recent sterling depreciation gives United Kingdom producers a competitive edge against foreign producers in both export and domestic markets, provided they keep costs down and continue to raise their quality.

  Coal Mine Licensing Regime
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met representatives of the coal industry to discuss the mine licensing regime currently operating.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend and I meet representatives of the coal industry as necessary to discuss a range of issues including coal mine licensing.

  Development Areas
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations he has received to date about the redrawing of the development area map; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is my intention to issue a complete list of those individuals and organisations which have put forward views under the consultation arrangements, when 118
  the announcement of the new assisted areas map is made. The only exceptions will be any views put forward to us in confidence. All representations received which are not confidential are available for inspection at specified offices in my Department and the Scottish and Welsh Offices.

  Biomass
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about using biomass for energy generation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Numerous representations have been made about biomass as a renewable energy source both directly and through the consultation process for the Renewable Energy Advisory Group.

  Aerospace Industry
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now publish the report of his Department's aerospace committee on the future of the United Kingdom aerospace industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The report on the future of the United Kingdom aerospace industry prepared by DTI's aviation committee—the national strategic technology acquisition plan for aeronautics—contains commercially sensitive information and is, therefore, not available for publication.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those companies in the Corby area which have qualified for regional selective assistance since 1 April 1991 and the value of regional selective assistance in the same period.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In this period 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1993, the following companies in the Corby travel-to-work area accepted offers of regional selective assistance:

  Eismann International Ltd.

  Solway Foods Ltd.

  TLC Distribution (Corby) Ltd.

  Unit Two Glass Ltd.

  Zeller Plastik UK Ltd.

  The list is limited to those companies where details of their projects were publicised in the Employment Gazette.

  The value of regional selective assistance accepted by companies in the Corby travel-to-work area since 1 April 1991 is as follows:

  Value of RSA accepted

  £'000

  1991–92

  803

  1992–93

  588

  National Welsh Omnibus Services Ltd.
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 8 March,Official Report, column 408, if he has received the additional information and clarification requested from the receivers of the national Welsh bus company; and what further responses or actions he proposes.
  119
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The information requested from the administration receivers of National Welsh Omnibus Services Limited was received on 19 April 1993 and is currently under consideration by the insolvency service.

  Adtec (Wales) Ltd.
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received the receiver's report on the insolvency of Adtec (Wales) Ltd.; and what further proposals for action he has.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The joint administrative receivers' return under rule 4 of the Insolvent Companies (Reports on Conduct of Directors) No. 2 Rules 1986, received on 7 January 1992, did not contain information making it expedient in the public interest to seek an order disqualifying the company's directors.

  Shipbuilding Intervention Fund
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes he proposes to make to the rules governing the shipbuilding intervention fund.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As a result of representations made by the Shipbuilders and Shiprepairers Association, I have examined the rules of the shipbuilding intervention fund. Since the inception of the scheme in 1977, shipbuilders have not been allowed to make a profit on such contracts, which had to be taken at break-even prices. However, where a shipbuilder could show that he had made a profit as a result of an improvement in efficiency, he was allowed to retain 50 per cent. of the profit, the remainder being clawed back by the Department. I have now decided that it is desirable that shipbuilders should benefit from any profit they make, and the rules of the scheme have been simplified to allow grant from the fund to be paid at the maximum permitted level for the size of ship, less 2 per cent. for shipbuilders relief. based on the actual final cost, provided that the sum does not exceed the amount specified in the offer letter. The change took effect on 1 April.

HEALTH

  Breast Cancer
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will supply numbers and comparative rates for deaths and registrations of deaths by health authority districts in England and Wales on female breast cancer since the present district health authority areas were established.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table. Deaths included are those with an underlying cause of malignant neoplasm of the female breast—ICD 174 ninth revision—and district health authorities as constituted in 1991. The death rates are based on the DHA population estimates for 1986, except for the DHAs indicated which are based on 1991.

  District Health Authority

  Deaths from female breast cancer, 1982–1991

  Annual death rate per 10,000 females

  Northern RHA

  Hartlepool DHA

  224

  4·82

  North Tees DHA

  362

  4·04

  120

  District Health Authority

  Deaths from female breast cancer, 1982–1991

  Annual death rate per 10,000 females

  South Tees DHA

  607

  4·10

  East Cumbria DHA

  436

  4·76

  South Cumbria DHA

  434

  4·87

  West Cumbria DHA

  332

  4·80

  Darlington DHA

  297

  4·68

  Durham DHA

  546

  4·53

  North West Durham DHA

  231

  5·20

  South West Durham DHA

  410

  5·24

  Northumberland DHA

  728

  4·73

  Gateshead DHA

  509

  4·78

  Newcastle DHA

  742

  5·11

  North Tyneside DHA

  559

  5·57

  South Tyneside DHA

  405

  5·04

  Sunderland DHA

  648

  4·23

  Yorkshire RHA

  Hull DHA

  762

  4·83

  East Yorkshire DHA

  594

  6·07

  Grimsby DHA

  423

  5·22

  Scunthorpe DHA

  546

  5·53

  Northallerton DHA

  266

  4·77

  York DHA

  629

  4·73

  Scarborough DHA

  436

  5·81

  Harrogate DHA

  388

  5·53

  Bradford DHA

  718

  4·16

  Airedale DHA

  453

  5·06

  Calderdale DHA

  487

  4·88

  Huddersfield DHA

  526

  4·81

  Dewsbury DHA

  362

  4·30

  Wakefield DHA

  336

  4·61

  Pontefract DHA

  384

  4·51

  Leeds DHA

  1,729

  4·72

  Trent RHA

  North Derbyshire DHA

  969

  5·27

  Southern Derbyshire DHA

  1,448

  5·43

  Leicestershire DHA

  2,129

  4·81

  North Lincolnshire DHA

  755

  5·55

  South Lincolnshire DHA

  855

  5·61

  Bassetlaw DHA

  316

  6·02

  Central Nottinghamshire DHA

  742

  5·14

  Nottingham DHA

  1,669

  5·31

  Barnsley DHA

  534

  4·74

  Doncaster DHA

  724

  4·94

  Rotherham DHA

  573

  4·48

  Sheffield DHA

  1,480

  5·39

  East Anglian RHA

  Cambridge DHA

  693

  5·05

  Peterborough DHA

  487

  4·71

  West Suffolk DHA

  557

  4·92

  East Suffolk DHA

  840

  5·17

  Norwich DHA

  1,326

  5·53

  Great Yarmouth DHA

  594

  5·90

  West Norfolk and Wisbech DHA

  558

  5·96

  Huntingdon DHA

  204

  3·14

  North West Thames RHA

  North Bedfordshire DHA

  593

  4·82

  South Bedfordshire DHA

  577

  4·18

  North Hertfordshire DHA

  507

  5·36

  East Hertfordshire DHA

  742

  5·01

  North West Hertfordshire DHA

  619

  4·65

  South West Hertfordshire DHA

  682

  5·43

  Barnet DHA

  870

  5·48

  Harrow DHA

  517

  4·96

  Hillingdon DHA

  625

  5·27

  Hounslow and Spelthorne DHA

  730

  5·07

  Ealing DHA

  678

  4·50

  Parkside DHA

  186

  15·65

  Riverside DHA

  720

  4·72

  North East Thames RHA

  Basildon and Thurrock DHA

  674

  4·73

  Mid Essex DHA

  687

  4·71

  121

  District Health Authority

  Deaths from female breast cancer, 1982–1991

  Annual death rate per 10,000 females

  North East Essex DHA

  965

  6·27

  West Essex DHA

  709

  5·51

  Southend DHA

  1,073

  6·43

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood DHA

  1,352

  5·76

  Hampstead DHA

  323

  5·59

  City and Hackney DHA

  440

  4·45

  Newham DHA

  507

  4·81

  Tower Hamlets DHA

  378

  4·95

  Enfield DHA

  703

  5·11

  Haringey DHA

  468

  4·65

  Redbridge DHA

  699

  5·93

  Waltham Forest DHA

  611

  5·45

  Bloomsbury and Islington DHA

  150

  13·97

  South East names RHA

  Brighton DHA

  1,043

  6·62

  Eastbourne DHA

  870

  7·04

  Hastings DHA

  674

  7·58

  South East Kent DHA

  852

  6·25

  Canterbury and Thanet DHA

  1,006

  6·36

  Dartford and Gravesham DHA

  586

  5·25

  Maidstone DHA

  484

  4·89

  Medway DHA

  794

  4·84

  Tunbridge Wells DHA

  594

  5·85

  Bexley DHA

  568

  5·04

  Greenwich DHA

  572

  5·05

  Bromley DHA

  870

  5·70

  West Lambeth DHA

  383

  4·57

  Camberwell DHA

  535

  4·85

  Lc wish am and North Southwark DHA

  862

  5·21

  South West Thames RHA

  North West Surrey DHA

  570

  5·37

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire DHA

  599

  4·34

  South West Surrey DHA

  520

  5·49

  Mid Surrey DHA

  549

  6·30

  East Surrey DHA

  592

  6·18

  Chichester DHA

  698

  7·36

  Mid Downs DHA

  764

  5·48

  Worthing DHA

  943

  7·15

  Croydon DHA

  780

  4·79

  Kingston and Esher DHA

  536

  5·79

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton DHA

  695

  5·74

  Wandsworth DHA

  462

  4·76

  Merton and Sutton DHA

  1,013

  5·83

  Wessex RHA

  East Dorset DHA

  1,654

  7·07

  West Dorset DHA

  611

  6·04

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire DHA

  1,349

  5·08

  Southampton and South West Hampshire DHA

  1,151

  5·41

  Winchester DHA

  560

  5·34

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire DHA

  466

  4·28

  Salisbury DHA

  343

  5·49

  Swindon DHA

  473

  4·07

  Bath DHA

  1,075

  5·31

  Isle of Wight DHA

  425

  6·50

  Oxford RHA

  East Berkshire DHA

  833

  4·58

  West Berkshire DHA

  999

  4·51

  Aylesbury Vale DHA

  324

  4·52

  Wycombe DHA

  709

  5·14

  Milton Keynes DHA

  278

  3·42

  Kettering DHA

  668

  5·16

  Northampton DHA

  731

  4·78

  Oxfordshire DHA

  1,225

  4·54

  122

  District Health Authority

  Deaths from female breast cancer, 1982–1991

  Annual death rate per 10,000 females

  South Western RHA

  Bristol and Weston DHA

  1,013

  5·35

  Frenchay DHA

  588

  5·23

  Southmead DHA

  612

  5·17

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly DHA

  1,406

  6·01

  Exeter DHA

  956

  6·06

  North Devon DHA

  380

  5·64

  Plymouth DHA

  815

  4·91

  Torbay DHA

  916

  7·26

  Cheltenham and District DHA

  583

  5·37

  Gloucester DHA

  895

  5·67

  Somerset DHA

  1,270

  6·20

  West Midlands RHA

  Bromsgrove and Redditch DHA

  380

  4·60

  Herefordshire DHA

  480

  6·16

  Kidderminster and District DHA

  242

  4·69

  Worcester and District DHA

  697

  5·76

  Shropshire DHA

  997

  5·03

  Mid Staffordshire DHA

  740

  4·77

  North Staffordshire DHA

  1,335

  5·69

  South East Staffordshire DHA

  632

  4·98

  South Warwickshire DHA

  623

  5·46

  East Birmingham DHA

  538

  5·37

  North Birmingham DHA

  498

  5·97

  West Birmingham DHA

  506

  4·74

  Coventry DHA

  739

  4·72

  Dudley DHA

  783

  5·14

  Sandwell DHA

  844

  5·48

  Solihull DHA

  512

  4·96

  Walsall DHA

  716

  5·42

  Wolverhampton DHA

  670

  5·27

  South Birmingham DHA

  1,186

  5·44

  North East Warwickshire DHA

  637

  4·92

  Mersey RHA

  Chester DHA

  482

  5·28

  Crewe DHA

  630

  5·02

  Halton DHA

  346

  4·78

  Macclesfield DHA

  499

  5·42

  Warrington DHA

  437

  4·76

  Liverpool DHA

  1,282

  5·12

  St. Helens and Knowsley DHA

  768

  4·26

  Southport and Formby DHA

  394

  6·27

  South Sefton DHA

  445

  4·77

  Wirral DHA

  994

  5·38

  North Western RHA

  Lancaster DHA

  363

  5·38

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde DHA

  1,049

  6·23

  Preston DHA

  305

  4·74

  Blackburn Hyndburn and Ribble Valley DHA

  654

  4·72

  Burnley Pendle and Rossendale DHA

  534

  4·54

  West Lancashire DHA

  252

  4·60

  Chorley and South Ribble DHA

  502

  5·12

  Bolton DHA

  632

  4·72

  Bury DHA

  499

  5·62

  North Manchester DHA

  391

  5·29

  Central Manchester DHA

  280

  4·54

  South Manchester DHA

  471

  5·01

  Oldham DHA

  580

  5·15

  Rochdale DHA

  509

  4·65

  Salford DHA

  678

  5·52

  Stockport DHA

  794

  5·29

  Tameside and Glossop DHA

  661

  5·25

  Trafford DHA

  586

  5·22

  Wigan DHA

  739

  4·72

  Wales

  Clwyd DHA

  1,225

  5·92

  East Dyfed DHA

  691

  5·86

  Pembrokeshire DHA

  278

  4·86

  Gwent DHA

  1,176

  5·21

  123

  District Health Authority

  Deaths from female breast cancer, 1982–1991

  Annual death rate per 10,000 females

  Gwynedd DHA

  754

  6·19

  Mid Glamorgan DHA

  1,404

  5·13

  Powys DHA

  321

  5·69

  South Glamorgan DHA

  1,042

  5·11

  West Glamorgan DHA

  996

  5·30

  1 Areas reconstituted in 1990 and mortality data available only for 1991.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effect on the care for sufferers of Alzheimer's disease of the new community care programme; and what representations she has received from the Alzheimer's Disease Society.

  Mr. Yeo
  The new community care arrangements give local authorities an opportunity to improve support for all groups, including people with Alzheimer's disease.

  Prescriptions (Limited List)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanism the Government proposes for the expansion of the limited list; and what effects he expects this expansion to have on the health of patients.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government have identified 10 additional categories of drugs for the selected list scheme. Decisions on which individual drugs may no longer be available on national health service prescription will be taken on the advice of the independent Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs. This will ensure that drugs to meet real clinical needs can be provided as economically as possible under the NHS. The health of patients will not be adversely affected.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made on the effect of the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry and the consequent effect on public expenditure of the limited list changes in respect of drugs active on the skin.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The selected list scheme is intended to help control the rise in the national health service drugs bill. The decision to extend the scheme to include additional categories of drugs, including drugs acting on the skin, will strengthen this objective and help to limit the growth of public expenditure. We cannot at this stage assess the specific effect of the selected list scheme separately from the many other factors influencing the pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom and other markets.

  Resource Management
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total cost to date of introducing resource management in England; and what is current annual cost benefit return on the investment.

  Mr. Sackville
  The total of funds made available in the years 1988–89 to 1993–94 to regional and special health authorities to introduce resource management will be £293·584 million.
  124
  The resource management programme aims to secure improvements in patient care through better management of resources at hospital level and is not concerned solely with financial benefits. Assessment of benefits is an integral part of resource management projects in individual hospitals, but there has been no comprehensive national survey of those assessments.

  Fire Certificates
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider holding centrally information on national health service premises which fail to hold a valid fire certificate.

  Mr. Sackville
  Local fire authorities are responsible for enforcing fire precautions in those parts of national health service premises designated under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 which require a fire certificate. It would be inappropriate for this information to be collected by the Department.

  For clinical areas and other parts of hospitals not requiring a fire certificate general managers and chief executives are required to confirm to the Department that their fire precaution arrangements have been agreed with the local fire authority.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects the review team on mental illness in the community to report; and whether community treatment orders on schizophrenic patients will be considered by the review team.

  Mr. Yeo
  The terms of our review of the case for new legal powers relating to the care of mentally ill people in the community were announced in the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on 13 January, col.731. The team has been asked to complete its work by July. It will take account of the full range of views which have been submitted on this subject.

  Drugs Bill
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total cost of the national health service drugs bill, expressed in 1992–93 prices, in each year since 1982.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table. The total national health service drugs bill comprises expenditure by the family health services and the hospital' and community health services.

  NHS Drugs Bill—England

  £ million

  Year

  FHS

  HCHS

  Total

  1982–83

  1,736

  421

  2,157

  1983–84

  1,859

  438

  2,297

  1984–85

  1,865

  436

  2,301

  1985–86

  1,892

  440

  2,332

  1986–87

  1,982

  458

  2,440

  1987–88

  2,094

  480

  2,574

  1988–89

  2,216

  483

  2,699

  1989–90

  2,316

  493

  2,809

  1990–91

  2,296

  508

  2,804

  1991–92

  2,398

  612

  3,010

  Note: 1992–93 figures are not yet available.

  Russia and Kazakhstan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her recent visit to Russia and Kazakhstan.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is much appreciation of the British health care system in both Russia and Kazakhstan. Both countries wish to take advantage of British know how in health care.

  In Moscow I had lengthy and very encouraging discussions with Colonel General Nechaev, the new Health Minister, who is head of both the military and civil health systems. We signed the new health co-operation agreement which provides a sound basis for future co-operation. There was also great interest in the operation of the national health service in the United Kingdom and the recent health reforms. I have therefore invited Colonel General Nechaev to London to see the operation of the NHS at first hand.

  Colonel General Nechaev accompanied me to Ekaterinburg in the Urals region of Sverdlovsk. This is the main centre of activity of the British Health Care Consortium which is offering the local government a complete health care package through an ingenious system of counter trade. The NHS, through NHS Overseas Enterprises, is also providing expert planning advice and training in health care management.

  I was delighted to be able to announce the extension of the know-how fund into health care management and Ekaterinburg as one of the areas to receive help. The activities I saw underline the importance of this development.

  In Almaty I had a 40-minute meeting with President Nazerbayev of Kazakhstan. The President is keen to put more substance into his country's relations with Britain and to see British industry involved in the health care sector. I had meetings with Mr. Devyatko, the Health Minister and signed a joint declaration on relations in the health care field. The consortium also signed a collaborative agreement with the Ministry of Health and Amersham International signed a protocol on vaccine production.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what national health service trusts allow community health councils to attend board meetings as observers;

  (2) which national health service trusts hold their regular board meetings in public.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service trusts are obliged by law to hold at least one public meeting each year and local community health councils retain the right to visit trust facilities. We are aware that many trusts go beyond the legal requirements on public access. However, provided that the legal requirements are met, the frequency of public meetings and attendance at them is a matter for individual trusts and the detailed information requested is not available centrally.

  Youth Treatment Service
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will publish the report of the advisory group on the youth treatment service; and if she will make a statement.
  126
  Mr. Yeo
  The first annual report is being published today, and copies have been placed in the Library. I welcome the publication of this report and I am grateful to the chairman, Mrs. Winifred Tumim, and her group for producing a constructive and helpful summary of the issues.

  The report demonstrates that the youth treatment service has made good progress since the events which led to the setting up of the group. I am confident that under the new management arrangements for the service introduced last April, progress will continue. The Government are committed to ensuring that children and young people are treated properly wherever they live; and the recommendations in this report should help to ensure that the rights of young people in the youth treatment service continue to be adequately safeguarded. I have asked the chief executive of the service to implement the recommendations, and he has reflected this in his service annual plan for 1993–94, copies of which are also being placed in the Library.

  Medical Work Force
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will accept the recommendations of the medical manpower standing advisory committee contained in its report, "Planning the Medical Workforce".

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am pleased to be able to announce that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has accepted this Committee's recommendations and has written to Professor Campbell, the chairman of the Medical Manpower Standing Advisory Committee, today to thank him and the committee for their helpful report. The target intake for medical students in the United Kingdom will be increased to 4,470 from October 1994.

  NHS Review
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 23 November 1992,Official Report, column 503, if she will now announce the results of the review of her Department's requirements for information from the NHS.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In order to reduce the burden of form-filling on the national health service, it has been decided that the Department will no longer require the NHS to provide the following returns:

  KH18 Maternity services: GP maternity clinics (only, relates to the few clinics held in hospitals).

  KP20 Summary of ward stays (provides an inappropriate measure of activity)

  KP72 Regular day and night admissions (this information is not used centrally)

  FR19 Purchase of health care from non-NHS bodies and grants to voluntary bodies (this information is not used centrally)

  FR26 Analysis of stocks (this information is not used centrally)

  FR27 Fixed Assets (this information is not used centrally) MAO1 Provider activity (this monthly information was collected on a trial basis and is no longer required for management purposes)

  It has also been agreed that the detailed content of other returns should continue to be reviewed to ensure that the burden on the NHS is fully justified. Changes to take effect in April 1994 will be announced in due course.

  Inheritances
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Registrar General will release personal information from the returns from censuses less than 100 years old to assist individuals establish their entitlement to an inheritance.

  Mr. Sackville
  Census returns for England and Wales which are less than 100 years old are closed to public inspection. Those from the 1921 and more recent censuses are in the custody of the Registrar General and are subject to the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991. The Registrar General does not release any personal information from the returns for those censuses as long as they are in his custody.

  The returns from the 1901 and 1911 censuses have been deposited at the Public Records Office. There is statutory provision for a record held by the Public Records Office to be inspected if special authority is given.

  Under concessions previously announced to the House, information on an individual's age and place of birth is made available from the 1901 census on application to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and for a charge corresponding to the cost of supplying it. This is conditional on the consent of the person concerned or of a direct descendant in the case of a deceased person, or next of kin if the person died childless. This facility is also available to a public administrator trustee seeking a beneficiary under a will.

  The Registrar General has reviewed his practice. While he is not prepared to extend to the 1911 census returns the concession which applies to the 1901 census, he would be willing to consider particular applications for information to be extracted from those returns if it would enable the applicant to establish a legal entitlement such as an inheritance. Such authority would be given only where the information is not available from any other source and is clearly requisite for establishing the entitlement in question. The Registrar General would wish to be fully satisfied from documentary evidence as to the identity of the applicant. Where the desired information from the census form relates to a living person other than the applicant, that person's consent would be required before the information would be released.

  The same conditions would apply to applications for information from the 1901 census which went beyond the existing concession relating to age and birthplace.

  The applicant would be required to meet the cost of making the search and, where the search is successful, of supplying the information.
  128
  These arrangements do not constitute any diminution of the confidentiality accorded to the records in conformity with the assurances printed on the forms of return for the censuses in question.

  Knee Replacement Implants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State of Health what plans she has to issue advice to patients regarding the most reliable knee replacement implants.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 16 April at column 745.

  Care and Adoption, Barnsley
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were(a) taken into care by Barnsley metropolitan borough council, (b) placed for adoption by that authority against the wishes of the parents and (c) placed for adoption during each year since 1990, and in the current year to date.

  Mr. Yeo
  In the year ending 31 March 1991, 197 children came into the care of Barnsley metropolitan borough council. A child may have more than one legal status in a year; in terms of the last legal status recorded, 132 children were received into care under section 2 of the Child Care Act 1980, 52 were committed to care by court order, and 13 remanded or detained in care.

  In respect of children placed for adoption, the information available centrally is the number of children who were in care and had been placed for adoption. At 31 March 1991, two children had been placed for adoption. Information is not available centrally on whether the children were placed for adoption against the wishes of the parents.

  Information about the children looked after by Barnsley metropolitan borough council for the period ending 31 March 1992 is still being processed; I will write to the hon. Member giving details when they are available. Information relating to the year ended 31 March 1993 is not due to be returned to the Department until 30 June 1993.

  At-risk Register, Barnsley
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children are currently on the at-risk register in Barnsley metropolitan borough.

  Mr. Yeo
  There were 373 children on the child protection register in Barnsley metropolitan borough at 31 March 1992. Information relating to 31 March 1993 is not, due to be returned to the Department until 31 May 1993.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was(a) the number and (b) percentage of persons out of work and eligible to claim benefit in the Cunninghame, North constituency in each month since June 1987.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Unemployment rates are not available for parlimentary constituencies. The smallest geographical areas for which unemployment rates are officially compiled are travel-to-work areas.

  Information on the number of persons in each month claiming unemployment related benefits in the Cunninghame, North constituency can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  These figures are on the unadjusted basis and therefore subject to seasonal influences and changes in the coverage of the count over the period.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been unemployed for more than one year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In January 1993, the latest date for which figures are available, 1,030,283 claimants in the United Kingdom had been unemployed for over one year. These figures are on the unadjusted basis.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will bring forward proposals to prevent discrimination on grounds of age for those aged between 40 and 64 years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Employers who discriminate on the grounds of age miss out on the skills, experience and commitment which older people can bring to a job. Age, however, can affect different people's abilities to do different jobs in different ways. Legislation which attempted to provide for this would be difficult to draft and impossible to enforce. I am confident that the recently formed advisory group on older workers, which I chair, will help greatly in persuading employers who discriminate that it is in their own best interests to treat everyone on their merits, regardless of their age.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the number of jobs in the construction industry over the last five-year period.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Between December 1987 and December 1992 the number of employees in the construction industry in the United Kingdom fell by 149,000.

  High Technology Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average weekly unit price of HTNT; and what was the average length of a course.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The planned average weekly unit cost of high technology national training payments to trainees, was £75 per trainee in 1992–93. The average length of a course in the same year was 49 weeks.
  130

  Careers Guidance (Diploma)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people are presently training for part I of the diploma for careers guidance, both full and part-time;

  (2) how many people currently on the part I diploma for careers guidance courses are (a) seconded by employers, (b) in receipt of local education authority awards, (c) in receipt of a local government management board training award and (d) self-financing.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The diploma in careers guidance is the responsibility of the local government management board, the advisory body to local authorities, although my Department makes a contribution towards funding some students. I have obtained from it the following information:

  Numbers

  Number of students, including part-time, currently taking part I of Diploma in Careers Guidance

  508

  Of these, the number

  (a) seconded by employers (LEAs)1

  138

  (b) in receipt of LEA grant

  158

  (c) in receipt of LGMB Training Award

  84

  (d) self-financing

  128

  1 Funding source may be LEA alone, or combined with LGMB or Employment Department.

  These figures apply to the United Kingdom and are for courses commenced in September/October 1992 and in January/February 1993. They are based on the registration forms completed by students.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to reply to the third report of the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1990–91, on Parliamentary Questions (HC 178).

  Mr. Newton
  I hope to submit the Government's response in the near future.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Food Research Institutes
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the institutes of food research which have closed since 1979, with their respective dates of closure.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Bristol laboratory of the Institute of Food Research, formerly the AFRC Meat Research Institute, closed on 31 December 1990.

  Institute of Food Research
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list total Government expenditure on the Institute of Food Research for each year from 1978–79 to 1992–93 in(a) cash and (b) constant prices; and if he will set out projected Government expenditure on the Institute of Food Research for each year from 1993–94 to 1996–97 in (i) cash and (ii) constant prices.
  131
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The Institute of Food Research did not come into being until the financial year 1985–86. Food research was previously carried out in the Meat Research Institute, Food Research Institute and the National Institute for Research in Dairying which were amalgamated into the Institute of Food Research. Recurrent science budget expenditure in the Institute of Food Research and its pre-cursors from 1978–79 is given in the table:

  Year

  Cash prices £ million

  Constant prices £ million

  1978–79

  5·4

  15·0

  1979–80

  6·3

  15·0

  1980–81

  8·0

  16·1

  1981–82

  9·5

  17·5

  1982–83

  10·3

  17·7

  1983–84

  10·8

  17·8

  1984–85

  11·6

  18·2

  1985–86

  9·6

  14·3

  1986–87

  10·7

  15·4

  1987–88

  10–9

  15·0

  1988–89

  11·4

  14·5

  1989–90

  11·4

  13·6

  1990–91

  11·3

  12–8

  1991–92

  10·9

  11·3

  1992–93

  11·8

  11–8

  11993–94

  11·7

  11·4

  1 Planned.

  Figures for the years 1994–95 to 1996–97 are not available.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Supplies
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will separately identify the nuclear supplies and services referred to at paragraph 2 of the introduction in his Department's Supply Estimates 1993–94, class I, vote 3; and if he will make a statement as to why those items have not been identified in the estimate.

  Mr. Aitken
  It would not be in the national interest to reveal the cost of the defence nuclear programme. For this reason such costs are not separately identified in supply estimates.

  Military Equipment
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the liability in relation to the supply of military equipment to an overseas Government referred to in paragraph 11(c) of the introduction to his Department's Supply Estimates 1993–94, class I, vote 3; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the Command Paper (Cmnd 9746) of 26 February 1986, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Ozone-depleting Substances
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) of 15 March,Official Report, column 73, if he will list the critical applications of ozone-depleting substances considered essential to his
  132
  Department's work; what are the annual amounts of each substance involved in each application; and to what extent there are any losses to the atmosphere of process emissions.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department considers only those applications of ozone-depleting substances that meet the following UNEP halon technical options committee essential use criteria as critical:"A critical need must exist to minimise damage due to fire, explosions or extinguishing agent application, which would otherwise result in serious impairment of an essential service to society, or pose an unacceptable threat to life, the environment, or national security; and
  All other appropriate fire protection measures have been taken".

  These applications can be found in, inter alia, installed equipments on ships, aircraft and in armoured vehicles. This list is under continuous review. Some 252 tonnes of halons and 425 tonnes of CFCs will be banked to support these critical applications. To preserve these and stocks within systems stringent measures are in place to reduce emissions to the atmosphere.

  D-Notice Committee
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current membership of the D-Notice Committee; and what salary is paid to each member.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The membership of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Committee is as follows:

  Chairman

  Sir Christopher France, KCB, Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence

  Vice-Chairman

  A. C. D. Stuart, Esq, former Editor-in-Chief, Thomson Regional Newspapers1

  Government representatives

  Sir Clive Whitmore, KCB, CVO, Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Home Office

  Moray Stewart, Esq, CB, Second Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence

  Sir Timothy Daunt, KCMG, Deputy Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Press and broadcasting representatives

  J. D. Bishop, Esq, Editor-in-Chief, Illustrated London News Group2

  G. Elliott, Esq, Editor, "The News", Portsmouth1

  R. Hutchinson, Esq, Publishing Director, Jane's Information Group2

  S. Kuttner, Esq, Managing Editor, "News of the World" 3

  E. J. Laird, Esq, Editor-in-Chief, "Daily Record & Sunday Mail", Glasgow4

  S. Purvis, Esq, Editor-in-Chief, Independent Television News

  B. Shrimsley, Esq, Associate Editor, "Daily Express"3

  D. Trelford, Esq, Editor, "The Observer"3

  C. T. Webb, Esq, Editor-in-Chief, The Press Association5

  To be nominated, British Broadcasting Corporation

  Secretary

  Rear Admiral D. M. Pulvertaft, CB

  Note: None of the representative members of the Committee receive any remuneration for the services to the Committee.

  Note:1 Representing The Newspaper Society.

  2 Representing The Periodical Publishers Association.

  3 Representing The Newspaper Publishers Association.
  133
  4 Representing The Scottish Daily Newspaper Society.

  5Representing The Press Association.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how often the D-Notice Committee met in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Defence, Press and Broadcasting Committee met twice in 1992; on 29 April and 20 October. I understand that its next meeting is scheduled for 6 May.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the review of the D-Notice Committee procedures to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand that the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Committee will be considering the progress of the D-notice review when it meets in early May.

  Civil Serviice Relocation
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it remains his policy to transfer 700 defence-related jobs from the south of England to Glasgow as part of the Government's civil service dispersal programme.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No final decision has yet been taken on the location of the Army personnel centre, but Glasgow remains a candidate to receive this work. If Glasgow is chosen, jobs will be relocated from the midlands and the north as well as the south of England.

  Guards Officers
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to exclude consideration of the socio-economic group of the parents of guardsmen when appointments to officer rank are made.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Commissions throughout the Army are awarded on the basis of merit. Selection for individual regiments is based upon the discretion of the regimental colonel, who may well take account of how well an individual applicant is likely to fit into the ethos of a particular regiment. In the case of the Guards, some 18 per cent. of the total number of officers have been commissioned from the ranks.

  RAF Hangar (Cosford)
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much it will cost to convert the RAF hangar at Cosford which at present contains the indoor running track for use as an aircraft technical training facility.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Conversion work is to be put out to contract and disclosure of estimated costs would comprise the tender process. A financial appraisal indicated however that the cost of converting the hangar would be less than half the cost of providing new functional accommodation.

  Telecommunications Aerials
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions he has had with telecommunications companies concerning the erection of telecommunication aerials for use by organisations other than his Department;

  (2) how many telecommunication aerials have been constructed on his Department's property for use by private companies in the last five years; and where they are sited.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is our policy to encourage the use of our facilities by private companies where this is compatible with defence needs. Details of these numerous arrangements are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Airbus
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he proposes to purchase a version of the European airbus for the role of multi-role tanker transport; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will investigate the prospects of adapting the airbus series of jets for military roles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The RAF will need to replace its VC-10 tanker transport fleet early next century. A number of commercial passenger aircraft types, including Airbus variants, could be suitable for conversion. It will be some time, however, before the draft requirement is ready to be discussed with industry, and Airbus will then be fully considered.

  Service Children's Schools
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the key targets for 1993–94 which have been set for the Service Children's Schools (North West Europe) Defence Agency.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The chief executive of Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)—SCS (NWE) —has been set the following key targets for 1993–94, the agency's third year of operation:

  1. To continue the implementation, so far as is feasible in the British Forces Germany (BFG) situation, of the Education Reform Act to the statutory timetable laid down for England and Wales by:

  (a) Introducing the National Curriculum to SCS (NWE) by subject and Key Stage.

  (b) Introducing pupil assessment by subject and Key Stage.

  (c) Implementing Teacher Appraisal.

  2. To continue to implement the SCS (NWE) "Schools for the Future" Development Plan in line with BFG drawdown and to action the following:

  (a) Issue guidance regarding the admission of Non-Entitled pupils and adult learners.

  (b) Make provision for support services to schools during, and beyond the drawdown process.

  (c) Implement child protection procedures in all remaining schools.

  (d) Work towards improved provision for pre-school children with special needs.

  (e) Implement the Service Children's Education Authority policy and procedures for health and safety in schools.

  3. To produce Management and School Development Plans reflecting the introduction of Local Management of Schools

  135
  into SCS (NWE) to enable "taut" full cost financial and management planning within an agreed budget and to achieve annual efficiency savings of at least 3 per cent.

  4. To maintain the overall pass rate at GCSE (grades A-G) and to improve the proportion of students gaining 'A' level grades A-E by 2 percentage points, and to achieve an 80 per cent. pass rate in BTEC First Diploma courses, whilst extending the range of vocational courses available to post 16 students as alternatives to 'A' level courses, to attract a larger proportion of 16–19 and mature students.

  5. To ensure that all teachers meet at least 2 of the 4 qualification match criteria for their post with at least 95 per cent. meeting 3 and 90 per cent. all 4. The criteria are:

  (a) A recognised professional qualification.

  (b) Relevant specialist subject to phase qualifications.

  (c) Broad and relevant previous teaching experience.

  (d) Relevant post-entry in-service training.

  6. To continue to implement Parents Charter requirements for:

  (a) An annual progress report to parents.

  (b) A transfer report on change of school.

  (c) Keeping parents informed of relevant education developments.

  (d) Standard Attainment Test and external examination results reported to parents annually.

  (e) The introduction of parental choice of schools in SCS(NEW).

  7. To submit an application for a Charter Mark by 30 June 1993

  8. To develop the role of Schools Advisory Committees including training members in order to match their function with Governing Bodies of schools in United Kingdom.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 19 March Official Report, column 420, showing the numbers and percentages of families receiving one or more means-tested benefit in 1979 and 1991, what are the comparable figures for single people without children; and whether the percentages in his reply refer to supplementary benefit/income support caseload or the specified demogrant groups.

  Mr. Burt
  Information in percentage terms cannot be given as there are no figures available for the total population of single people without children. Other information is in the table.

  Single people without children

  Recipients (000's)

  Benefit

  1979

  1991

  Supplementary Benefit (SB)/Income Support (IS) including those with Housing Benefit (HB) and Community Charge Benefit (CCB);.

  1,970

  2,826

  Housing Benefit including those with CCB but not those with IS.

  —

  1,156

  Community Charge Benefit not including those with IS or HB.

  —

  881

  All single people without children in receipt of one or more means-tested benefit.

  1,970

  4,863

  Notes:

  1. All figures rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. There are no overlaps between the categories of recipients shown.

  3. Housing Benefit and Community Charge did not exist in 1979.

  Source:

  Supplementary Benefits—Annual Statistical Enquiry May 1979.

  Income Support—Annual Statistical Enquiry May 1991.

  Housing Benefit/Community Charge Benefit—Management Information System (Annual 1 per cent. sample) May 1991.
  136

  Lost Giro Cheques
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time for the replacement of a lost Giro cheque.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the most recently available figure for the housing benefit live load in each district of Northamptonshire; and what are the costs involved.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest information available is as follows:

  Authority

  Caseload February 1993

  Benefit expenditure 1991–92 (£ thousand)

  Corby

  5,087

  4,865

  Daventry

  2,855

  2,826

  East Northamptonshire

  3,444

  3,223

  Kettering

  4,536

  5,423

  Northampton

  112,366

  17,665

  South Northamptonshire

  2,616

  3,010

  Wellingborough

  4,814

  5,257

  1 November 1992.

  Sources: Housing Benefit Management Information System 1991–92 Final Claims.

  Child Support Act 1991
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he has made to exempt women resident in refuges for battered women from having to go through the Child Support Act 1991 procedures in order to give evidence that harm and undue distress may result from the fathers of their children being pursued for maintenance.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) on 11 March at column 697.

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to implement the Industrial Advisory Council recommendations with respect to chronic bronchitis and emphysema.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on 29 March 1993 at column 77.

  Ms Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when forms for claims for occupational health benefits for miners in respect of emphysema and bronchitis will be available in all DSS and Benefits Agency offices.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of social security is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.
  137
  Letter from Michael Bichard to Ms Helen Jackson, dated 20 April 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking when forms for claims for occupational health benefits for miners in respect of emphysema and bronchitis will be available in all DHSS and benefits agency offices.
  As announced in the House of Commons on 29 March, the Government propose to extend the list of prescribed diseases to include chronic bronchitis and emphysema in relation to underground coal miners. This change is intended to take effect from 13 September 1993. Claims can be made for disablement under the industrial injuries scheme at any time, but claims for these diseases made before the change takes effect will not be successful District Offices will have full instructions and claim forms will be available in good time for the start date.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also appear in the Library.

  SERPS
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the long-term savings which will arise as the result of the phasing out of the best 20 years rule for calculating SERPS pensions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The best available estimate' is as follows:

  Savings £ billion2

  1993–94

  0

  2003–2004

  0

  2013–2014

  0

  2023–2024

  3

  2033–2034

  8

  2043–2044

  11

  2053–2054

  13

  1 Supplied by the Government Actuary's Department

  2 Approximate savings at April 1989 prices.

  Income Support
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 1 April,Official Report, column 419, if he will give a breakdown of the number of claimants and dependants on income support by standard region; and if he will give equivalent figures for the past three years.

  Mr. Burt
  Such information as is available is in the tables. The latest year for which regional figures are available is 1991.

  Income support recipients claimants, partners and dependants

  000s

  Region

  Claimants

  Partners

  Dependants

  1989

  North Eastern

  684

  133

  362

  London North

  607

  104

  319

  South Western

  268

  41

  111

  Wales

  246

  44

  123

  Midlands

  668

  130

  365

  North Western

  662

  115

  366

  Scotland

  486

  81

  232

  London South

  540

  77

  261

  138

  Region

  Claimants

  Partners

  Dependants

  Great Britain

  4,161

  724

  2,138

  1990

  North Eastern

  674

  122

  341

  London North

  638

  107

  348

  South Western

  274

  43

  115

  Wales

  248

  44

  133

  Midlands

  665

  123

  362

  North Western

  643

  105

  356

  Scotland

  481

  70

  226

  London South

  558

  78

  271

  Great Britain

  4,180

  691

  2,151

  1991

  North Eastern

  688

  121

  406

  London North

  735

  131

  424

  South Western

  310

  59

  155

  Wales

  257

  46

  138

  Midlands

  699

  131

  403

  North Western

  669

  105

  381

  Scotland

  487

  69

  249

  London South

  641

  101

  342

  Great Britain

  4,487

  763

  2,497

  Sources:

  Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries, May 1989, 1990, 1991.

  Notes:

  1. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand, and so may not sum to the totals given.

  2. Information is not available for the standard statistical regions. Figures are therefore given by Social Security regions.

  3. "Partners" are people living with the claimant as a married couple.

  4. "Dependants" are young people aged under 19 who live in the parental home.

  Investigations
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 214, how many of the cases of social security investigations in (a) England and (b) Yorkshire and Humberside resulted in identified overpayments (i) inclusive of prosecutions for fraud and (ii) exclusive of prosecutions for fraud.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of benefit fraud is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. David Hinchliffe,. dated 20 April 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 1993, Official Report, column 214, how many of the cases of social security investigations in (a) England and (b) Yorkshire and Humberside resulted in identified overpayments (i) inclusive of prosecutions for fraud and (ii) exclusive of prosecutions for fraud.
  The last full year for which figures are available is the year ending 31 March 1992. The figures for the year ending 31 March 1993 will shortly be available and I will be pleased to write to you again with these details when I receive them. However, during the year ending 31 March 1992 a total of 40,674 investigations in England resulted in an identified

  139
  overpayment. Included in this figure are 5,685 identified overpayments in the Yorkshire and Humberside area. I am unable to provide details of those overpayment cases that resulted in prosecution for fraud as our statistics are not kept in this way.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentage of budgeting loans in Nottinghamshire in 1992–93 were refused because the applicant has not received income support for 26 weeks;

  (2) how many applications for (a) a local social fund review and (b) a social fund inspectorate review were made from claimants in North, West and East Nottinghamshire Benefit Agency offices during 1992–93; and what percentage in each case were successful;

  (3) how many applicants (a) for a community care grant were offered a budgeting loan instead and (b) for a social fund loan were offered a community care grant, in Nottinghamshire in 1992–93;

  (4) how many crisis loans and budgeting loans were allocated in Nottinghamshire during 1992–93.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Alan Simpson, dated 20 April 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to four of your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the operation of the Social Fund in Nottinghamshire. All figures provided are for the period 1 April 1992 to 28 February 1993, the latest period for which information is available.
  The percentages of budgeting loan applications refused because the applicant had not been in receipt of Income Support for 26 weeks are 10·6% for East Nottinghamshire District, 13·9% for North Nottinghamshire District and 9·4% for West Nottinghamshire District.
  Figures relating to the number of applications for review and the percentage which resulted in an increased award are in Annex A.
  I am unable to answer the Question as to how many applicants for a community care grant were offered a budgeting loan as such information is not kept as a matter of course. However, I can advise you that 834 loan applications in the three Nottinghamshire Districts have resulted in the award of a grant.
  The total number of crisis loans awarded by the three Nottinghamshire Districts is 9,606 and that for budgeting loans is 12,737.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Annex A

  Data for the period 1 April 1992 to 28 February 1993

  East Notts.

  North Notts.

  West Notts.

  1. Applications for local review

  1,216

  654

  1,256

  Percentage where award increased at stage 1

  14·1

  12·1

  28·5

  Percentage where award increased at stage 2

  16·0

  11·0

  8·4

  2. Applications for SFI review

  140

  58

  109

  Percentage where award increased

  22·9

  19·0

  37·6

  140
  Notes:

  Stage 1. Review conducted in the office, usually by the officer who made the original decision.

  Stage 2. Reviews which do not result wholly in the applicant's favour are referred automatically to a higher grade officer, who determines the application afresh.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) which benefit agencies were able to pay crisis loans only towards the end of the 1992–93 financial year;

  (2) what is the administrative cost of (a) a crisis loan allocation and (b) a budgeting loan allocation;

  (3) what were the (a) percentage success rates for crisis loans and (b) average community care grants paid for (i) East Nottinghamshire benefit agency and (ii) North Nottinghamshire benefit agency for 1991–92; and what analysis has been made of the reasons underlying the differences;

  (4) what were the percentage success rates for (a) community care grants and (b) budgeting loans for 1991–92 for Nottinghamshire benefit agency offices; and what are the reasons for the difference.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Alan Simpson, dated 20 April 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to four of your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Social Fund.
  Two of your questions relate to the national situation. Firstly, the latest available costings for processing applications for crisis loans and budgeting loans are £18·95 and £12·06 respectively. Applications include awards and refusals. You will appreciate that the costs of administering a discretionary scheme are high, as each application involves a comprehensive consideration of the applicant's individual circumstances.
  Secondly, you also asked about Benefits Agency Districts which were only paying crisis loans towards the end of the 1992–93 financial year. I can confirm that all Districts continued throughout the year to meet all the highest priority applications generally.
  Your other questions asked for information specific to Districts in Nottinghamshire. The average community care grant paid by East Nottinghamshire District in 1991–92 was £284. The figure for North Nottinghamshire was £255.
  Details of percentage success rates for crisis loans, community care grants and budgeting loans for the Nottinghamshire Districts during the 1991–92 financial year, are given in Annex A.
  It is inevitable that there will be some variation in numbers and amounts of awards in a discretionary scheme like the Social Fund. I should emphasise that the vast majority of community care grant refusals are because the application fails to meet the basic criteria for an award.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Annex A

  Percentage success rates for crisis loans, community care grants and budgeting loans for Nottinghamshire Districts in 1991–92

  Percentage

  District

  CL

  CCG

  BL

  East Nottinghamshire

  81

  22

  53

  North Nottinghamshire

  61

  23

  51

  West Nottinghamshire

  94

  26

  54

  141
  Notes:

  CL—Crisis loan.

  CCG—Community care grant.

  BL—Budgeting loan.

  Benefits
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the numbers and percentages of families receiving one or more means-tested benefit in 1979 and the latest available year.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table.

  000s Per cent.

  Benefit

  1979 Recipients (Note 2)

  1991 Recipients

  Supplementary Benefit (SB)/ Income Support (IS) (including those with Housing Benefit (HB) and Community Charge Benefit (CCB)) (Note 8)

  488 (6·8)

  1,320 (19·5)

  Family Income Supplement (FIS)/ Family Credit (FC) (including those with HB and CCB)

  79 (1·1)

  347 (5·1)

  Housing Benefit (HB) (including those with CCB but not those with IS or FC)

  —

  143 (2·1)

  Community Charge Benefit (not including those with IS or FC or HB)

  —

  99 (1·5)

  All families in receipt of one or more means-tested benefits

  567 (7·9)

  1,909 (28·2)

  Notes:

  1. For the purposes of the answer, families are defined as couples or single people with children.

  2. These figures represent the number in each category as a percentage of the total number of families in the population which is based on the number of Child Benefit recipients.

  3. There are no overlaps between the categories of recipients shown, except for a small element of double counting between the SB/IS and FIS/FC figures.

  4. There are no comparable statistics available for schemes similar to Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit that existed in 1979.

  5. The FIS figures for 1979 are for November of that year. All other figures are for May of the respective years.

  6. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  7. In 1988 Income Support replaced Supplementary Benefit and Family Credit replaced Family Income Supplement.

  8. This category includes a small number of people who were in remunerative work and receiving FC prior to being awarded IS. Family Credit will remain in payment until the end of the current award, but will not be renewed if IS remains in payment.

  Source:

  Supplementary Benefit—Annual Statistical Enquiry May 1979.

  Income Support—Annual Statistical Enquiry May 1991.

  Family Income Supplement—Table 32.05 Social Security Statistics 1980.

  Family Credit—Family Credit Statistical System May 1991.

  Housing Benefit/Community Charge Benefit—Management Information System (Annual 1 per cent. sample).

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  State Veterinary Service
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many state veterinary service staff there were on 1 January as(a) qualified veterinarians, (b) technical and scientific staff, (c) administrative staff and (d) others.
  142
  Mr. Gummer
  The following details relate to the veterinary field and veterinary investigation services and the veterinary staff of the Tolworth policy group.

  The administrative staff of the Tolworth policy group (306–5 staff) are not included.

  Number

  Qualified veterinary surgeons

  420

  Technical/scientific

  382

  Administrative

  488

  Other

  73·5

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the most recent estimates of closure dates of the veterinary investigation centres; and if he will list the closure dates of those that have already closed since 1979.

  Mr. Gummer
  A veterinary investigation centre located at the Central Veterinary Laboratory, Addlestone closed in December 1980. In November 1985 the Liverpool centre was relocated to a new purpose built centre at Barton hall, Preston. As a result of the recommendations of the efficiency study of the veterinary investigation service carried out in 1984–85, the Cardiff centre closed in March 1986, the Gloucester and Leeds centres closed in June 1986 and the Northampton centre in July 1986. A small laboratory at Chester was also closed in April 1986.

  As a result of the 1991 review of the veterinary investigation service, the Wye centre closed in July 1991 and the Bangor and Lincoln centres closed in September 1991.

  The Cambridge and Norwich centres closed on 30 January 1993 and 6 February 1993 respectively, when these two centres were amalgamated in a new purpose-built centre at Bury St. Edmunds. With the completion of the new purpose-built centre at Luddington, Warwickshire, the Worcester centre closed on 20 March 1993. The Reading and Winchester centres will be amalgamated on the Winchester site when the enhancement of the Winchester centre is completed in mid-1994.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many qualified veterinarians were employed by the state veterinary service in each year from 1979.

  Mr. Gummer
  Since 1980 the structure of the state veterinary service has changed several times. For example, the central veterinary laboratory (CVL), which formed part of the state veterinary service attained agency status in April 1990. The CVL figures are incorporated in this return for the years 1 January 1980-1 January 1990. As from I June 1990 the figures do not include the CVL.

  Qualified veterinary surgeons

  January

  Number

  1980

  580·5

  1981

  563·5

  1982

  557·0

  1983

  549·0

  1984

  539·5

  1985

  527·5

  1986

  506·5

  1987

  464·5

  1988

  444·5

  1989

  422·0

  1990

  430·5

  143

  January

  Number

  1991

  408·0

  1992

  414·5

  1993

  420·0

  Agriculture and Food Research Council
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the projected expenditure by his Department on the Agriculture and Food Research Council for each year from 1993–94 to 1996–97.

  Mr. Gummer
  MAFF's commission with the Agriculture and Food Research Council amounts to £34·8 million in 1993–94. The allocation of funds for 1994–95 to 1996–97 is still under consideration and the council will be notified as soon as decisions have been reached.

  Deregulation Initiative
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 211, if he will list all the environmental, consumer and animal welfare organisations he (a) has consulted and (b) intends to consult about his deregulation initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Since February 1992 I have been seeking the views of interested organisations on measures that impose a burden on businesses in the food and agriculture sectors. This process has culminated, as I announced on 2 February in my decision to prepare deregulation plans for each sector of my Department responsible for regulatory activity. A deregulation plan for the area of food law was published by my Department on 24 February 1993. It was sent to 240 organisations, including consumer bodies, for comment. A copy of the list of organisations has been placed in the Library of the House. I hope that any organisation inadvertently not approached will feel free to comment; I want to know the views of all groups with an interest. Deregulation plans for other key areas of my Department's work, including the areas of the environment and animal welfare, are to be completed very shortly. A decision will be taken then about arrangements for consultation.

  Food Bans
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ensure that the Action Group for the Relief of Pain and Distress and the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy are in future consulted before decisions are taken to ban the sale of foods.

  Mr. Soames
  It is the policy of the Department to consult widely on the whole range of food safety issues. However I cannot give an unqualified guarantee which could hamper the Department's ability to take immediate action to protect consumers.

  Codex Alimentarius
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out his policy on the desirability of reforming the Codex Alimentarius.
  144
  Mr. Gummer
  The United Kingdom Government are in agreement with proposed changes to procedures to be discussed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission later this year.

  RAF Aston Down
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what work is currently being carried out by his Department at the former Royal Air Force station Aston Down; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  One wildlife unit is based at the station.

  Tobacco Quotas
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the policy he will be adopting at the meeting of agriculture Ministers on the allocation of tobacco quotas to Greece.

  Mr. Curry
  The Council of Agriculture Ministers in December 1992 requested the EC Commission to re-examine the distribution of quotas attributed to the various varieties of tobacco in Greece with a view to taking better account of the way the production of Virginia has developed on the basis of investments decided before 30 December 1991 and to report its conclusions as soon as possible. The Commission issued its report in March 1993, and indicated its intention to propose the following measures:

  20 million ecu (£16 million) of Community aid and 5 million ecu (£4 million) of national aid to assist Greek producers who invested before the end of 1991 in equipment to produce flue cured tobacco and whose investment was subsequently adversely affected by the imposition of quotas;

  Unutilised Greek quota from other varieties to be made available to Virginia producers;

  Discretionary powers to enable Member States to give preference to new producers when allocating national tobacco quotas.

  These measures were discussed at the March Agriculture Council and presented to the Tobacco Management Committee as Commission regulations where they were approved. This issue is not expected to be considered further by the Council.

  Butter
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the sale of butter at reduced prices to persons receiving social assistance.

  Mr. Curry
  In common with all EC member states, with. the exception of the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom has not implemented the discretionary EC scheme for sales of butter at reduced prices to persons receiving social assistance.

  Quantock Staghounds
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many formal meetings were held between Forestry Commission officials and hunt officials of the Quantock Staghounds in 1990, 1991 and 1992; and how many warden checks were carried out on Forestry Commission land to ensure the Quantock Staghounds adhere to the terms and conditions of their permit in 1990, 1991 and 1992.
  145
  Mr. Curry
  Forestry Commission officials and hunt officials of the Quantock Staghounds met formally once in 1990, twice in 1991 and once in 1992. In addition, a number of informal meetings were held each year, and Commission and hunt officials usually meet every two months as members of the Quantock deer management and conservation group.
  146
  Forestry Commission staff carry out random checks on hunt days to ensure that the conditions of the permits are being followed, but these routine inspections are not recorded.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Legal Aid
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated cost of legal aid in the financial year 1993–94; and what has been the cost in 1992–93.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, net expenditure on legal aid in 1993–94 is expected to be £1,284 million. Final figures for 1992–93 are not yet available but the total net cost is expected to be slightly more than £1,100 million.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that interesting Answer. Is he not concerned at the tendency of this heavy load of expenditure to increase at a time when Her Majesty's Government are struggling in other areas, such as defence, to restrict expenditure? Can he say whether any further action is intended to secure that there will be a real reduction in expenditure this year?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, naturally I am concerned about the total of public expenditure, in particular about the part of it that is the legal aid budget. I have taken steps which in my view have the effect of controlling the rate of rise of the legal aid budget while still producing an increase in the total net cost. I believe that these arrangements are reasonable in all the circumstances.
Lord Morris: My Lords, has an analysis been commissioned as to why there has been such an alarming increase in legal aid? Is it because we have become a more litigious people or a more criminal people, or is it because the expense of providing legal services has risen so greatly?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there have been increases in the number of acts of assistance offered under the legal aid scheme. That is one aspect of the increase. Another aspect is the unit cost. The unit cost has, generally speaking, gone up faster than inflation. Those two aspects have to be taken into account. The Legal Aid Board commissioned some research into the reasons for the growth in legal aid in magistrates' courts. It is very difficult to come to firm conclusions about these matters. So far as I am concerned, what I receive essentially are the bills from those who provide the services.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord help the House and perhaps even shed some light on the problem by telling us why in Scotland civil legal aid per case costs £800 and in England it costs £1,600? Can he tell us why that is so?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it might be unwise for me to speculate unduly on this matter. It is a question of the total circumstances in which the legal aid is granted, the nature of the legal remedies available and, apart from anything else, the overheads that the profession has to bear. These matters are considered separately in Scotland and in England and Wales. My primary responsibility at present is in respect of England and Wales.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, would it not have been appropriate for the noble and learned Lord to have said in his Answer that there are now more poor people who simply cannot afford to get justice in a very unjust society? Is that not one of the factors?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I said that more people are receiving legal aid than before. There has been a growth in the number of those receiving legal aid. But I also pointed out that the unit cost is increasing. The noble Lord will not expect me to agree with his general observations on the state of justice in our society.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is it not right that the chief reason for this increase is simply the increase in crime and that therefore money spent in reducing crime would reduce the cost of legal aid?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the less crime there is, the better for all of us. No doubt that would have an effect on the legal aid budget. The budget for crime prevention is important and, where it is effective, it can help to contain the legal aid budget.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor will know better than most, if I may say so, that there is to be a judicial review of this matter. Will the noble and learned Lord consider suspending the proposed regulations until after that judicial review has taken place? Otherwise, irreparable damage may well be done to those people who have emergency applications for legal aid which they will not now be in a position to have granted.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, naturally, I am in a very good position to know that leave to move for judicial review has been granted in respect of the eligibility changes which I have proposed in regulations laid before Parliament. I have considered the question which the noble Lord has raised, but I have concluded that it is not appropriate for me to seek to amend those regulations. Apart from anything else, the total budget available to me is, as I have said, set for this year. If the regulations were suspended for any length of time I should have to find some greater savings as regards the rest of the year than are likely to ensue from the effect of these regulations. Therefore, in the light of all the circumstances, I am likely to make the position worse rather than better if I accede to that suggestion.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that, although this Question concerns legal costs, people who have been running

1557
small businesses for a number of years find that all professional charges, including those of the banks, are reaching a point where the pain is unbearable?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I well understand that various costs are rising. To some extent, of course, those who invite the services have to consider what they can afford and possibly seek competitive offers from those who provide the services.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, arising from that question, can the noble and learned Lord say whether there is any information about the increase in incomes in the legal profession compared with increases in comparable professions? Are those figures available? If they are, I believe that they would be of considerable interest.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, some figures are available, but they are not very good overall figures. For example, figures are made available by the Top Salaries Review Body in relation to its consideration of judicial salaries. That is a sample, as it were. I am not aware of very reliable overall figures for the legal profession as a whole.

Poverty: Aid
2.46 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the estimate by Action Aid, in their report Bridging the Poverty Gap, that the number of people existing in absolute poverty could increase to 1.5 billion by the year 2000.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, reducing poverty, suffering and deprivation and improving the quality of life of poor people through sustainable economic and social development, is the overriding purpose of our aid programmes to developing countries.
Lord Judd: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the UN estimates that less than 10 per cent. of British aid is targeted to the poorest people? Can he explain why that is? Is he also aware that even under the World Bank's most optimistic forecasts, the outlook in sub-Saharan Africa is particularly grim with a doubling of the number of those in absolute poverty in the next seven years? How are the Government going to respond to that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are not entirely happy about the figure of 1.5 billion that the noble Lord quoted in his original Question. However, we entirely agree with Action Aid on the central importance of tackling poverty, but do not believe that precise figures are either possible or helpful. They do rely very much on judgmental choices. As I said, one of our priority objectives, set out in our 1993 departmental report, is to help developing countries to design and implement poverty reduction strategies. We have an expanding portfolio of projects targeted on interventions which tackle poverty directly. Those projects
1558
cover many sectors including agriculture, health, education, water supply and slum upgrading. In 1991–92, about 30 per cent. of our aid to developing countries, allocable by sector, was spent in those sectors.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the very heavy commitments which are being undertaken by the Government as regards assistance in Yugoslavia and in our responsibilities in responding to the needs of the Soviet Union. Can he give the House an assurance that the aid budget will not be diminished as a consequence of accepting those responsibilities?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there are no plans to cut the overseas aid budget to the developing world as a result of commitments to the eastern European countries and the former Soviet Union.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, will the Minister accept that Action Aid is completely right to include in its report some paragraphs on the crucial subject of world population which, by the year 2000, is expected to have increased by about 750 million? Will he accept the statement which Action Aid makes in its report that an estimated 300 million couples lack access to the services which they need and want to plan their family size?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree that high population growth rates, if they continue unchecked, will prevent many developing countries achieving sustainable reductions in poverty. The ODA has made extending people's choice about their fertility a focus for the aid programme. Past experience has shown that once family planning services are widely available, fertility levels drop dramatically. My noble friend Lady Chalker has produced, with the ODA, a document called Children by Choice, Not Chance, which explains just how the ODA hopes to play the fullest of parts in this process. I can assure the noble Lord that direct spending on population projects has risen by some 66 per cent. over the past three years to some £29 million.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the Action Aid report is about the poorest of the poor—in most cases, people with no assets whatsoever and often no clothing. Since the Minister did not answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Judd about the fact that only 10 per cent. of British aid goes to the poorest of the poor, will he answer that question now? Does he agree—and will he discuss this with his noble friend Lady Chalker—that it is time for a review of the priorities set by our aid programme given that such a small proportion actually goes to the very poorest of the poor?
Lord Henley: My Lords, in fact the figure is that some 80 per cent. of our bilateral country programmes are spent in the poorest countries. That was in 1991–92. I have to say to the noble Lord that the OECD development assistance committee has recognised the poverty focus and effectiveness of our aid programme and its high quality. But I think that the noble Lord certainly does have a point. The very point about aid is that it must be spent effectively. I

1559
can assure the noble Lord that my noble friend and the ODA will always keep the effectiveness of any overseas aid programme under review.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the figure quoted by Action Aid represents a little over six times the population of the USA? There just is not enough surplus food in the world to feed that population. Is it not ridiculous that we are taking 2 million acres out of temperate food production in this country when that necessity is so obvious to everybody who looks at the figures? May I ask the noble Lord one other question? Does he know that Intermediate Technology, which is a charitable body interested in and doing a tremendous job in helping such countries to develop, is worried that the Government will cut its grant this year? I hope that that is not the case.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot answer the specific question on Intermediate Technology and the level of its grant; but I can assure the noble Lord that it is possible under the joint funding scheme for any non-government body to apply for 50 per cent. help with any specific projects to the ODA. As regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, I agree that obviously food production is very important. As regards the second half of the first part of his question, I believe that the noble Lord has a Question down on that very subject in two weeks' time and I think that the noble Lord can wait until then for an Answer.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that international debt and structural adjustment programmes are actually making poor people poorer in poor countries—and that is the great majority of people in those countries—rather than richer? Does not that result in a loss of important markets for our manufactured goods and services?
Lord Henley: My Lords, again, the noble Lord does have a point and I would not disagree with Action Aid's fundamental analysis of the debt situation. Current terms cannot meet the needs of the poorest, most indebted countries. We shall certainly continue to press other countries for further improvements on a case-by-case basis.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recent 43 billion dollar aid package for Russia demonstrates what can be done when the will is there and that that compares with a mere 55 billion dollar programme spent by the main donors on aid to the entire third world? Is it not time for the Government to publish a White Paper setting out their strategy for dealing with world poverty so that we are not constantly overtaken by the latest crisis in the absence of a strategy?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will note the suggestion that a White Paper should be published. But I do have to stress—and to some extent repeat some of the remarks made on the earlier question—that we spend as a country something of the order of £2 billion on overseas aid. These are very large sums of money indeed and they
1560
have to be viewed in the context of the whole of government spending and all the other priorities and demands on the taxpayer and taxpayers' money.

Fish Imports
2.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to help rationalise quantities of fish imports, so that supplies needed by processors are maintained without distorting the United Kingdom market.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Community responded to serious market disturbance in February and March by introducing minimum import prices for a range of third-country supplies, effective to 30th June, and stricter control over direct landings by third-country vessels. Some member states suggested more severe measures but the Government consider that the measures taken were an appropriate response given that imports were not the only cause of market disturbance, and that Community processors must import a high proportion of their requirements. A decision should soon be taken on revised terms for the Community quotas which contribute a significant part of the supplies for processors.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer. While the concern of fishermen is understandable, will the Government give wide circulation to the facts to help to prevent misguided blockades and the destruction of fish aimed at the wrong targets? I refer to targets such as routine imports to processing plants which do not affect markets and where Britons have been put out of work, and foreign factory ships which provide an important service by providing a market for British-caught mackerel and herring.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government have repeatedly explained the variety of causes for recent market disturbance. This is greatly attributable to cheap third-country imports, but there are other reasons also, such as unco-ordinated surges of fishing effort and consumer preference for cheaper foods such as poultrymeat and pork. The Government and the EC Commission have made a substantial response to the market situation and the Government are fully aware of the needs of processors and catchers. Equally, we totally deplore the misguided blockades and the destruction of fish.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that among the reasons which are causing concern for our indigenous fishermen and which have led to troubles at the ports is the belief that exists among them that while our own fishermen are policed closely and observe rigidly the net mesh regulations, other countries (both European and third-world countries) are escaping that vigilance almost entirely?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I must point out to the noble Lord that those two

1561
issues are unrelated. The total catching effort of Community fishermen can supply only a small proportion of the fish required for processing in this country; for example, about 90 per cent. of the fish required for manufacturing fish fingers must be imported.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to secure the passage of our fish to French markets and to secure compensation for the exporters where that passage has been impeded by the unlawful use of force by the French?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government's strong and repeated representations finally elicited a very explicit confirmation from French Ministers that all possible measures are being taken to guarantee the specific passage of fish products, especially those from the United Kingdom. That has done much to ensure the effectiveness of the arrangements already set out for notifying details of consignments to the French police so that they can take action.
The noble Lady also asked about compensation. Officials are advising those who have suffered direct loss and damage on the details required by the French authorities to support compensation claims. The department will assist in the construction of claims and will pass them on, via the British embassy in Paris, to the appropriate French regional authorities.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is a ludicrous situation when British fishermen have to throw back into the sea large quantities of fish in order to stay within EC rules but then find when they get back to port that their market has been ruined by cheap imports of fish which are similar in size and quality to those that they have been forced to discard?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, on the subject of discards, I should point out that if all fish caught were landed there would be no incentive for fishermen to observe their quotas. The result would be too few fish left to breed future stocks. Similarly, there would be no reason to respect minimum mesh sizes.
Lord Carter: My Lords, imported fish which replaces the discards has to be caught somewhere.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, indeed, but we have to respect and preserve our fish stocks in the North Sea.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Earl explain minimum import prices to the House? Does he mean that he will force foreign suppliers to take more money than they are willing to take for the fish they land here?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, it would make no sense to seek substantially to increase the price of fish when one of the fundamental problems is slack consumer demand. It is recognised that not enough is being done in some member states
1562
to enforce the existing minimum import price. The next step must therefore be to enforce the existing price effectively.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in evidence to the Select Committee of another place, officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food forecast that the British fishing industry will decline even further in the next few years. Will the noble Earl confirm that evidence? Under such circumstances, is it not natural that British fishermen are bound to do everything possible to protect their industry, including the calling for bans on foreign fish, however wrong that might be?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as I have said, the Government and the EC Commission have now made a substantial response to the market situation and are committed to taking further appropriate action where justified, but not all action rests with governments. The fishing industry can phase its efforts better. Catchers and processors should work out how to exploit the available resources rationally.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his subsequent answers do not fit in with the answer he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, about mesh size being irrelevant? The size of the mesh and the stringency in applying it seem to me to be very relevant in view of the answers he has just given.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, if mesh sizes are increased, the size of the fish will similarly have to increase.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the loss of the hake fishing industry off the coast of Britain, a classic example of over-fishing, was brought about in part because in the process of raising an immature hake from its natural water level its balance sacs burst? In Britain we throw the fish back into the sea whereas French ships take home those immature hake in concealed refrigeration plant.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I believe that I tried to answer that point on discards when I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Carter.

Industrial Strategy: Budget Measures
3.3 p.m.
Lord Laing of Dunphail Lord Laing of Dunphail asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have assessed the likely consequences of the tax changes of the Budget for British industry, with particular attention to its effect on Rolls-Royce cars; and whether they will publish a statement of their industrial strategy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered the overall impact of his Budget on industry and the impact of

1563
each measure with particular care. Rolls-Royce cars will of course benefit from the budget measures to help business and promote recovery.
The Government's industrial strategy is already clear—a long-term commitment to help British industry succeed in world markets. That involves all policies, including those pursued by the Chancellor in a Budget which cut the tax burden on business by £1 billion.
Lord Laing of Dunphail: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer. However, do not the Government understand that the erosion of our manufacturing base has, to an important extent, been caused by sudden changes in government policy, including tax changes—in the case of Rolls-Royce of up to 400 per cent. —to which companies, however efficient, cannot respond quickly? Secondly, do they understand that that is aggravated by a financial system which will sell great companies to foreigners at the drop of a hat?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I hasten to reassure my noble friend that the Government consulted widely on proposals for change last year. On the issue of taxation on company cars, the great majority of respondents, including motor manufacturers, were against the banding of cars by price. I assure my noble friend that the Government continue to consider comments and suggestions. I am aware that my right honourable friend will be meeting senior representatives of Rolls-Royce in the next month. I assure him that we are working closely with industry. I am delighted that last month's increase in manufacturing output proves that we are being successful.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister be implementing the last part of the Question? Will the Government publish a statement of their industrial strategy, as requested in the latter part of today's Question?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we are operating an industrial strategy. We recognise the vital role of the private sector. We are working for a stable economic climate with an emphasis upon competitiveness and deregulation. We are supporting departments with critical interfacing with the wealth-creating sector and we are developing close links with business. Our aim is to provide services of the highest possible standard, properly co-ordinated and actively promoted. The figures show that we are achieving our aim.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, if the Government's industrial strategy is as clear as my noble friend suggests, why are the Government so unwilling to restate it for the benefit of those who do not have such a clear understanding of it? Is it just possible that the Government will not state their industrial strategy because it is difficult, if not impossible, to secure the consent, agreement and commitment to it by other departments?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble friend ensures that I state regularly in the House the
1564
Government's industrial strategy. As I said in my previous answer, we work closely with other government departments which interface with wealth creation, and, in particular, he should note the help that the Treasury gives.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, although she tries boldly to assert the Government's industrial strategy, she fails significantly every time she addresses the issue? Is she not aware that the alleged strategy is in absolute tatters? That could not be better exemplified (could it?) by the fact that in March alone the PSBR leapt by £9.5 billion; that the unemployment figures, despite the slight fall last month, are still devastatingly high; and that capital spending has been estimated in a recently undertaken survey not to rise significantly in 1993. When will the Government address those fundamental issues?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we constantly address those fundamental issues. I am delighted to say that the other side of the coin quoted by the noble Lord is positive; this month we have seen growth in manufacturing.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in the anticipation that your Lordships will agree to the Motion which is about to be moved by my noble friend the Leader of the House, I should like to suggest that in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, it would conform with the spirit of our debates if, save for the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, opening and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde winding up, the length of speeches were kept within the 15 minutes maximum time limit recommended in the Companion.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Motion in the name of the Lord Williams of Elvel set down for today shall be limited to 5 hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.10 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
In moving that the report should be agreed to perhaps I may draw attention to some of the committee's recommendations. The first section of the

1565
report deals with time-limited debates. The report recommends that when the maximum length of speeches in time-limited debates is calculated a minimum time should be set aside for the two closing opposition speakers. The committee considered that issue at length because, as the report points out, it will mean that the Back Benchers' allocations will be reduced in some debates. But the committee considered that the current rules allowing opposition speakers some leeway to use up spare time were too vague and therefore recommends guaranteed limits as suggested.
The report proposes two experiments in relation to time-limited debates. The first experiment seeks to reduce the occasions when the list of speakers for a time-limited debate is so long that only a few minutes are allocated by helping to tailor Motions for short debate more closely to the 2½ hours available. It is suggested that noble Lords should seek the advice of the Clerks on wording, with the usual channels acting as a longstop if necessary. I might stress that that advice will concern the scope of Motions and not their content.
The second experiment is of some Unstarred Questions to be limited to one hour so that they can be taken in the dinner break. That should allow more Unstarred Questions to be tabled at busy times of the year. Of course, no noble Lord would be obliged to table his Question as a time-limited Unstarred Question. Arrangements for Unstarred Questions held as now at the end of the day would be unchanged.
The other main issue considered in the report was the question of debates on Consolidated Fund Bills. The House will remember that the matter was discussed when the committee's second report was agreed to at the start of February. The committee considered a paper on the subject from the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. But as the report explains, the committee unanimously decided that there should be no change from the current guidance. One reason was that it would be odd for the Lords to debate Bills about public expenditure which cannot be debated in another place. But the main arguments used against debating such Bills were practical. Consolidated Fund Bills appear with minimal notice and in so far as debate is relevant it is relevant to the full range of publicly-funded activities. Debating such Bills, therefore, seemed to threaten ill-prepared, confused and unfocused debates. The committee concluded that it would not be the best way to use the time of the House.
I shall be pleased to respond to any matters which may be of concern to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the third report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 76).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
TIME-LIMITED DEBATES
Opposition winding-up speeches
1. Current rules for all time-limited debates guarantee a minimum time for the movers of debates and for the
1566
Government spokesman, but make no specific provision for opposition frontbench spokesmen winding up at the end of a debate. It is accepted practice for opposition spokesmen to seek to sum up points made in the debate in their speeches. The Committee's 2nd Report, 1990–91, suggested that opposition winding up speeches could use up some of the time often left at the end of a debate. But the wording of this guidance was tentative, and it has not been easy for opposition spokesmen to put it into practice. The Committee has therefore concluded that time should be set aside for closing opposition speeches. The Committee recognises that this will mean that, in some debates, backbenchers will be allocated less time. But we believe that guaranteeing a minimum time for all closing speakers would allow a proper balance between the frontbenches, and ensure that winding up speeches can fully sum up the debate.
2. The Committee therefore recommends that opposition winding up spokesmen should be given a minimum of 10 minutes whenever the Government spokesman has 20 minutes for winding up, and 12 minutes when the Government spokesman has 25 minutes. When the backbenchers' time allocation is greater than this, there will be no difference between backbench time and that given to opposition spokesmen.
Length of debate when time limits applied by business motion
3. Traditionally, the length of time-limited debates in the House of Lords has been restricted to 2½ hours or 5 hours. In the Committee's 1st and 2nd Reports, 1990–91, it was agreed to have an experiment giving the House the freedom to apply other time limits. This has helped to tailor the length of debates more closely to the numbers of speakers taking part. The Committee recommends that the freedom to apply limits of any length should be confirmed.
4. In the Committee's 2nd Report, 1990–91, it was agreed that debates of 4 hours or more should have the same time allocations for opening and closing speeches as for 5 hour debates, and that debates below 4 hours should have the same allocations as for 2½ hour debates. The Committee recommends that if it is decided to hold 1½ hour debates, 12 minutes should be allocated to the mover of a debate, 15 minutes to the Government winding up, and 8 minutes to the final opposition speeches (see paragraph 2).
Scope of short debates
5. No freedom is available to change the time allocated to the 2½ hour debates chosen by ballot (short debates). Broadly drafted motions attracting a large number of speakers lead to the allocation of only a few minutes to each speaker. When short debates were first introduced, it was not intended that they would be used to raise broad issues of important national policy. The Committee recommends that the subject matter of short debates should be limited in scope, and should not seek to raise fundamental or wide-ranging issues which cannot be properly explored in the time allotted. Motions should be examined before the ballot takes place, to assess whether the scope of the motion seems appropriate. In the first instance, the advice of the Clerks on the wording of motions for

1567
short debate should be sought (Companion, p 51). In case of difficulty, it would fall to the usual channels to help to ensure that motions were appropriate to the time allowed. These arrangements should begin on an experimental basis.
Unstarred Questions
6. At busy times of the year, it is often difficult to find time for Unstarred Questions to be asked. The Committee therefore recommends that, on an experimental basis, Lords should be able to table Unstarred Questions to be asked during the one hour's dinner break. This would enable more Unstarred Questions to be asked, without extending the House's sitting hours. However, a time limit would have to be applied to the Question, to ensure that the legislative business was not delayed. The Committee recommends a time limit of one hour, with 10 minutes set aside for the questioner, and 12 for the Government response. No special provision should be made for opposition frontbench contributions. It will be important for the questions to be limited in scope. The Companion already states that in the case of a second Unstarred Question, "the Lord concerned should be prepared to postpone his Question to a later date" (p 83). It may be likewise necessary for a Lord to postpone an Unstarred Question intended for the dinner break if it becomes clear that a Question has attracted more interest than can be accommodated in one hour.
Speaking in the Gap
7. The Brief Guide to the Practice and Procedure of the House makes it clear that those Lords who have not put their names on a speakers' list, and who rise to speak just before the winding up speakers, should be brief. The Committee endorses this guidance, and recommends its inclusion in the Companion.
DEBATES ON CONSOLIDATED FUND BILLS
8. In the Committee's 2nd Report, 1992–93, the Committee endorsed the current Companion guidance concerning proceedings on consolidated fund bills:
"It does not offend the privileges of the Commons for the Lords to discuss or even to decide upon consolidated fund bills, but the House has habitually passed such bills without printing them and without discussion or dissent. It is now a convention that proceedings upon them are taken formally."(Companion, p124)
The last time that the substance of a consolidated fund bill was discussed was in 1907.
9. The Committee was invited to re-examine this guidance for a second time. Consolidated fund bills are in a different category to other public bills for three reasons. First, the timetable for such bills is both fast-moving and difficult to predict. Debates on these bills would therefore arise with little warning, and little opportunity for Lords to prepare. Second, consolidated fund bills exist to sanction the grant of finance for the full range of publicly-funded activity. If debate on the second reading was deemed relevant under the terms of Standing Order 26, it could therefore range across an enormous variety of subjects, resulting in an extremely unfocused debate. Finally, House of Commons Standing Order 54(1) prohibits debate on consolidated fund bills. Although
1568
the Companion makes clear that privilege is not an issue, the principle of comity between the two Houses would suggest that the House of Lords should not decide to discuss money bills on which there is no debate in the House of Commons. The Committee concludes that the guidance should not be altered.
10. On a related point, it was suggested that the House should have more opportunities to discuss economic and financial subjects. The Committee considered that this was a question of business management, not of procedure, for consideration by the usual channels.
WRITTEN ANSWERS FROM EXECUTIVE AGENCIES
11. In the Committee's 2nd Report, 1992–93, it was stated that parliamentary privilege, which confers freedom from legal proceedings on statements by MPs and Lords in Parliament, would not attach to written answers from executive agencies. The Committee are advised that, as answers are printed in the Official Report, they will be fully covered by privilege.
OWNERSHIP OF BILLS
12. The Committee's 2nd Report, 1988–89, stated:
"Bills once introduced are in the possession of the House, and not in the sole ownership of their sponsor."
The Committee endorses this guidance.
ALPHABETICAL SPLIT IN DIVISION LOBBIES
13. Analysis of voting figures in the division lobbies has shown that there are consistently more Lords whose names begin with the letters A to K voting than those whose names begin with the letters L to Z. The Committee therefore recommends that Lords should split on the basis of A to J and K to Z in the lobbies.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as one of those who demurred at the second report perhaps I may first express my gratitude that the matter of the Consolidated Fund Bills has been reconsidered. However, I fear that I must also express grave disquiet at the endorsement of the previous decision. It is contrary to the public interest and very definitely contrary to the interests of your Lordships' House.
As has been pointed out, a Consolidated Fund Bill, which turns into an Appropriation Act, covers the whole range of public expenditure. It is therefore particularly suitable as an agent for discussing the financial and economic situation generally. There are generally three Consolidated Fund Bills in each year; in December, in the Spring and in July. If we are to have, as now seems likely, an Autumn Statement followed by a Winter Budget there will be no real need for a Consolidated Fund Bill for discussion at the end of the year. But by this time of the year the situation is entirely different and it is still more different by July.
As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, a moment or two ago, some of the forecasts for the Budget only one month ago have been falsified. The headline read, "Record surge in state spending". As the noble Lord pointed out the figure was more than £1 billion over and above that which was prognosticated only one month ago. Obviously the situation merits reconsideration and

1569
will still more merit reconsideration in July, for who can tell now what the economic circumstances will be then?
The second reason is that your Lordships bring unexampled experience and knowledge to the discussion of such issues. There are in your Lordships' House no fewer than seven former Chancellors of the Exchequer, four former Chief Secretaries, a number of heads of government departments with important financial influence, such as National Insurance and social security. Their advice and counsel is available. Your Lordships also have among their Members a former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and the former chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, who would also have been chairman of the Committee of Supply. Your Lordships have as a Member the chairman of one of the biggest high street banks and his predecessor and a number of other Members with vast experience of finance, commerce and industry. No other deliberative body in the world can produce anything like that body of experience, knowledge and judgment.
There is no reason to hide such illumination under a bushel and every reason not to do so, particularly at a time such as this when your Lordships' role in the constitution is being questioned. Now, above all, is the time to show that your Lordships have inherited and can still maintain the position of the great council of state.
I said that because I wish to say a few words about the weight of the convention in this case. As your Lordships know, the British constitution depends as much on conventions which are not absolutely binding as upon laws which are binding. Those conventions can be very powerful; for instance, the convention that although your Lordships' House collectively is the highest court in the land it habitually leaves the judicial decision to the Appellate Committee of professionals. That committee has existed for more than 150 years and antedates the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. It has powerful constitutional arguments in its favour. It is a powerful convention and it is extremely unlikely to be breached. If it were the jurisdiction would almost certainly be abolished.
As an intermediate convention, one can look across the Atlantic. There was the convention that the American president should enjoy only two terms of office. That was sufficiently powerful to disappoint the hopes of Grant and Theodore Roosevelt of a third term. But it was still a convention and it did not prevent Franklin Roosevelt having three terms and being elected for a fourth term.
As a still weaker convention, and very close to the convention with which your Lordships are immediately concerned, one can take the convention that a government should resign after defeat in an election. For many years the convention was that a defeated government should meet Parliament before resigning. That reflected the legal sovereignty of Parliament. But at the end of the last century the electorate had increased to such an extent that it was recognised that the political sovereign was the electorate. Both
1570
Disraeli and Gladstone resigned on being defeated at the polls. Their example was again followed for decades; but in 1923 there was a hung Parliament and the convention was found to be inconvenient. Baldwin met Parliament without resigning after defeat at the polls and I have little doubt that if we have again, as we may have, a hung Parliament, that may be found to be the convenient course.
The lesson is that a convention will be followed so long as it is convenient and will be rejected and departed from when it proves inconvenient. This convention is all the stronger for its renewed endorsement by the Procedure Committee but it still does not make much sense and may be highly inconvenient. Therefore, I venture to suggest that although it is prima facie to be observed, it will be departed from when it is inconvenient.
The more that government business managers provide an opportunity for a debate on economic and financial matters, the less there will be a need to depart from the convention; but at present there is little sign of that. Therefore, I end as I began by expressing very great regret at the re-endorsement by the Procedure Committee.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the discussion of the noble and learned Lord on the Consolidated Fund Bill. The Chairman of Committees may find it convenient to reply to the House at the end of our discussions.
I want to raise specifically the question of short, timed debates. I regard those as rather precious in this House because it gives the opportunity for Back-Bench Members to contribute to the affairs of the House; and that is something we should protect. There is an obvious lack of flexibility in the arrangements as quoted in the report. Paragraph 5 of the report states:
"No freedom is available to change the time allocated to the 21½ hour debates chosen by ballot".
I thought that we were discussing the arrangements for short, timed debates; but the report says that there is no freedom available to do so.
There was an extremely interesting example last week of the present difficulties and inadequacies.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the present arrangements do not allow for any alteration in balloted debates. Of course that does not mean that the House cannot change those arrangements if it so wishes.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, that is not what it says in the report. The report says, "no freedom is available". Surely the House should determine whether or not freedom is available to change those arrangements.
I wish to give an example to the House. Two years ago I put down my name for a balloted debate on forestry. I am not sure whether that will fall within the province of matters of great national importance which may be excluded in the future; I hope it will not. I came to the House the day before the debate and I discovered that the preceding debate on drugs had six speakers. The two and a half hour debate on forestry to follow had 21 speakers. I asked the Clerk whether

1571
it might be possible to make an adjustment so that the 21 speakers in the forestry debate might be allocated some of the time available from the other debate. I was told that that was not possible.
When the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, gave our timetable on the day, he said that because there were only a few speakers in the preceding debate, there was to be no time limit on the speakers on that debate; but since there were 21 speakers in the debate on forestry, they would have only five minutes each in which to speak. Noble Lords who wish to discuss forestry in this House travel long distances to do so. Some of my fellow Scottish Peers travel more than 500 miles. On arrival they are greeted with the announcement that they have five minutes only in which to speak. I regard that as totally inadequate. I should have thought that the committee looking at those matters would introduce a measure of flexibility which would make for the better working of the House and would make available more time for Back-Benchers like myself.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I support strongly the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, to paragraph 5 which frankly astonished me. To propose that short debates should not seek to raise fundamental or wide-ranging issues seems to me to beg every question before the debate starts. For it to go on to say that it should fall to the usual channels to help to ensure that Motions are appropriate, strikes me as being a positively soviet approach to your Lordships' affairs. I hope that your Lordships will reject that absurd suggestion.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I agree entirely with the report. I believe that it is an extremely good report. Although I hate to disagree with the noble Lord who spoke about Consolidated Fund Bills, I found the arguments adduced by the committee to be totally convincing. I very much hope that the House will agree to the report.
There is one question that I should like to ask my noble friend on Unstarred Questions in the Dinner break. I am not sure how that will work when there is government business in the Dinner break, as very often there is. Is it intended that Unstarred Questions should only be permissible when there is not government business or is it somehow intended to fit both into the one hour that is available?
Lord Parry: My Lords, I wish to underline strongly what has already been said by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe and the noble Lord opposite. However, I wish to speak on paragraph 7, "Speaking in the Gap".
It seems to me that in the 18 years that I have been in your Lordships' House, almost by accident the opportunities of the Barons' Benches have been cut back. In a sense it is a casualty of the organisation of the House properly to conduct its business. The more well organised the Front Benches on both sides of the House, the greater is the lack of opportunity for the Back-Benchers to record their important points.
I feel that a frustration is building up which arises from the fact that London-based Barons, who do a tremendous amount of work in this House, almost
1572
inevitably dominate each day's proceedings. It is perfectly possible to journey in from the peripheral areas of Britain with something to contribute on a specific issue upon which one has some experience and competence and find it talked out by people whom one has heard speak every day on every issue for their full ration of time, thus taking up the whole time of the House. While one respects their service and appreciates what they say, it is an awful frustration.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may bring the House back to the issue of debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill which, as your Lordships may recall, was the main subject of discussion in the previous report of the Select Committee and, I believe, the reason the Select Committee was good enough to say that it would have another look at the issue, as it has now looked at several others.
I agree very much with what was so well said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the constitutional and presentational importance of the matter. Reading through the report, I had the feeling that the Select Committee, understandably in the light of its composition, was really rather more interested in the mechanics of the operation of the House and the convenience of the work of the usual channels, than it was with the broader issue of the standing of the House and indeed of the function of the House which people will perceive outside.
After all, a Consolidated Fund Bill is one of the most important measures of the Session. As noble Lords know, it authorises the issue of public funds for the various purposes for which they have been voted under the Finance Bill. It is of enormous importance. For your Lordships' House deliberately to deny itself the right even to discuss it, seems to me to be a very serious matter and one which perhaps indicates a certain lack of confidence in the role of this Chamber. It may well be looked at in that way from outside.
Therefore, I hope even now, and notwithstanding the deliberations of the Select Committee, that your Lordships are prepared further to consider the matter. I, and quite a number of others, regard it as of very real importance. As I understand it, the report rejects the idea on the grounds that such debates would be inconvenient and awkward to arrange; for example, they would have to be arranged at the last minute, it would be difficult for the usual channels, and so on. On the previous occasion—although not I notice on this one—the Select Committee also relied on the highly specious argument that, as there is now no Treasury Minister in the House, apparently no one would be in a position to reply to issues raised in the debate. I am glad to say that that argument has not been put forward again.
I hope that most noble Lords will share my view that it is wholly wrong that there is now no Treasury Minister in the House. Of course, there was until a fairly short time ago in the very able person of the then Paymaster General. The absence of the appropriate Minister, who obviously would be the appropriate Minister to deal with the Bill, is the responsibility of the Government, and not this House, to put right. I

1573
ask noble Lords to think very hard indeed before deliberately voting themselves out of the capacity to debate possibly the most important of the year's measures. It is a very serious matter.
The mere fact that the debate may well be difficult and inconvenient is surely no conclusive argument; nor is it conclusive, as the Select Committee suggests, that another place has decided not to debate Consolidated Fund Bills. After all, in that case, they have ample—some may think excessive—opportunities to debate economics and finance. Indeed, they certainly do not lack opportunities. But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, we have comparatively few opportunities in this Chamber. Therefore, either the Consolidated Fund Bill, or a debate in lieu of it, would serve a very useful purpose for bringing into the public view and into operation the immense body of expertise and experience which exists in this House on these grave, difficult and complicated matters.
I hope that the Select Committee will not be obstinate about the matter. If I may say so without offence, I am afraid that it suggests that the Select Committee is a little excessively interested in the smooth working of the work of the usual channels and perhaps a little inadequately interested in the standing, reputation and position of the House in the public view. I urge upon your Lordships the fact that we ought to be free to debate that Bill.
Finally, when my noble friend on the Front Bench replies, can he say what the effect of the guidance would actually be? In other words, if, when the Consolidated Fund Bill was called for a Second Reading, a noble Lord rose to speak to it, would he be ruled out of order or would he merely suffer looks of disapproval from his friends on the Front Bench? Would he in fact be stopped from speaking? If he were to be stopped, perhaps I may ask the alternative question: would he not then be perfectly in order in speaking on the Motion which they always have on such occasions; namely, the Motion to allow more than one stage of a Bill to be taken on the same day? So far as I know, that Motion is not excluded from any discussion. If the Government say that they would regard a speech in the ordinary way on the Second Reading of the Bill as being out of order and would seek to have it stopped—and I really wish to know whether they would do that—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: They cannot!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Well, my Lords; I should like to know whether they would try to do so. If they would, I should also like to know whether the alternative lies in simply debating the Motion to take all stages of the Bill on the same day which would in fact enable the main issues of the Bill to be raised. In due course, when my noble friend the Chairman of Committees comes to reply, I shall be most interested to hear his answer.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most anxious not to stand in the way of the House by entering upon the time allocated for the very
1574
important debate to be initiated by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. However, I fear that I must pass some small comment on the report which your Lordships are considering this afternoon. I should like to do so without duplicating anything that has been said either by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, or by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
When we consider the paragraph which deals with the whole question of the Consolidated Fund Bill, the explanation for the rejection of the suggestions put forward does not entirely agree with the explanation given in the document itself. If noble Lords refer to the document it will be seen that it says:
"Finally, House of Commons Standing Order 54(1) prohibits debate on consolidated fund bills. Although the Companion makes clear that privilege is not an issue, the principle of comity between the two Houses would suggest that the House of Lords should not decide to discuss money bills on which there is no debate in the House of Commons".
It is the first time that the principle of "comity" has been placed before us in that connection. I am all for comity with the other place—that is, whatever "comity" may mean —although I should like to observe in parenthesis that it certainly does not inhibit the other place from time to time demanding our reform or abolition. If there is to be comity, I suggest that it should apply both ways. In future, I intend to resist the temptation to point out to another place that they are not entirely without certain defects upon which, in the interests of comity, I need not elaborate at present. Surely the position between the two Houses, within the concept of comity, is well understood. It does not even need to be stated in the Companion.
It is accepted between the two Houses that it is desirable that your Lordships' House shall, for example, debate in Committee in detail items and amendments that have not been debated thoroughly in another place. That is one example of where there is a dovetailing of interest and where it is accepted that we have a certain valuable function to perform. I might add that that function has not always added to the friendly relationship between this House and Her Majesty's Government for the time being in Office because we do from time to time defeat amendments that are brought before us. On the principle that there is a certain dovetailing of interest that we in this House find convenient, and that we have the ability despite our ages to discuss matters adequately, surely this principle can be extended into the realms of finance and economics on a far more comprehensive basis than it has been up to now.
I shall not elaborate on the proposals that have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—as far as I am concerned they command some sympathy—but I can give another example. Let us take the case of the European budget. That budget comprises a voluminous document which in my experience is never thoroughly discussed in another place, even in the broadest outline. After all, the United Kingdom contributes £1.75 billion net into the Community budget every year. That matter could be discussed and an opportunity could be provided in this House for its detailed discussion. From my own

1575
examination of the matter I can assure your Lordships that such a discussion would be most rewarding where it is not humourous or even tragic. I hope that we shall not consider ourselves automatically bound to exclude from our agenda items which another place finds it convenient for its own reasons, procedural or other, to omit. Conditions of comity could in those circumstances operate fully.
It would be wrong for me to end upon a controversial note. I wish to congratulate the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for the constructive way in which he and his committee have set about their task.
I have only one final observation to make which I sincerely trust will meet with your Lordships' general approval. My observation concerns winding-up speeches. I broadly concur with the decisions arrived at by the Select Committee but, just as the Companion can occasionally offer advice to Members on the way that they should proceed, I hope that I may presume to offer a little advice on this occasion to Her Majesty's Government on the matter of winding-up speeches. Most of us would find it convenient if winding-up speeches from the Government, instead of being prepared beforehand and then read, occasionally replied to the debate. I believe that would be most helpful to all Members of the House and would redound to the good reputation and the competence of the Government.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, may I say that I strongly dissent from the views put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It may be thought that as I was a Treasury Minister in your Lordships' House who was responsible for these matters for a period of years I am therefore prejudiced. But if I am prejudiced I fall only into the same category as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
Debating the Consolidated Fund Bill in another place provides an opportunity for Members to discuss constituency matters or to trot out their hobby-horses to exercise around the yard. It is not the opportunity on which the financial, economic, budgetary or expenditure affairs of the nation are discussed. The correct occasions on which those matters should be discussed are on the Budget, on the Finance Bill or on the humble Address. It is perfectly true—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, briefly touched upon this towards the end of his speech—that the usual channels have shown in recent years a singular reluctance to have these matters adequately discussed. They have been supported in that by the Opposition parties who no doubt have no greater wish to disclose their position, if they have one, than the Government have to defend their position whether they have one or not. But nevertheless those are the right occasions on which these matters should be discussed. In years past they were adequately discussed and we had many interesting and valuable debates in which many of the noble gentlemen specified by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon
1576
of Glaisdale, made significant contributions. I suggest to your Lordships that the right thing to do is to have adequate provision made for discussing these matters on the right and proper occasions and not to invent the wrong and improper occasions on which to discuss them.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, first I wish to address the question of debate on the Consolidated Fund. Paragraph 9 of the report states that Consolidated Fund Bills are in a different category for three reasons. First, the timetable is fast moving and difficult to predict; secondly, the debates are very diverse, wide-ranging and are extremely unfocused —that never occurs in your Lordships' House of course!—and, finally (this is the killer punch) the House of Commons Standing Order 54(1) prohibits debate on Consolidated Fund Bills. It is almost as if those provisions were cast in stone.
How did that provision in the Commons arise? I am pleased to explain the position to your Lordships from my personal experience. When my party was in government, on one occasion the then Opposition used the opportunity of debate on the Consolidated Fund to prolong the discussion to such a length that to get things on the move again the government had to make a concession for which the Opposition had been asking since the debate started. When we moved into Opposition I bore this ploy in mind and at a suitable time I sprang the same trap on the Government. I am glad to inform your Lordships that we not only got our own back but we obtained substantial interest into the bargain.
That was an example of exploitation of the Consolidated Fund for purely party advantage. Both sides did it and it was realised that, while it was a bit of good fun at the time and it was painful for one side and enjoyable for the other, it really was not the way in which the House of Commons should conduct its business. That is the reason why the Commons decided not to debate the Bill. There is absolutely no way in which those circumstances could be repeated in your Lordships' House. Therefore despite the reference to comity, or whatever it is—I am not sure whether amity, or cohabitation, is the correct word in this context—there is no question whatsoever of comparison. I ask the Select Committee not to grasp at this particular straw to buttress its rather weak position.
I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, as regards his comments on the scope of short debates. When we are discussing whether an issue is an important matter of national policy we are entering fields of subjective judgment. We are asking the Clerks of the House to make a judgment. We are placing upon their shoulders the burden of saying yea or nay to someone who feels particularly strongly about something. That is unfair. If necessary we then go to the usual channels. My experience of the usual channels tells me that the decision may sometimes be made in favour of the establishment rather than of the individual Member who is making the application. Therefore, I ask the Committee to have a further look

1577
at the matter. In conclusion, I look forward to the day when the Procedure Committee comes to the House and says that it has no changes to report.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to make a brief intervention to associate myself with everything that was said so well by my noble friend Lord Cockfield. Perhaps I may be allowed to point out in relation to the general debate on economic and financial matters or other matters of current moment which is sought in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the memorandum submitted to the Procedure Committee that there is no precedent or convention that on Second Reading in your Lordships' House there should be any such debate.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. He will no doubt have in mind that the House habitually debates the Irish consolidated fund appropriation measure on the basis that all the expenditure therein is a matter which is open for debate. There is the precedent.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I shall spend no further time on that point.
These Bills are not debated in another place. With respect to the noble Lord, the reason matters not. They are not debated. The Bills reach your Lordships' House at very short notice or without notice. Usually, by custom, they pass both Houses within a week. The order of general debate sought in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the memorandum submitted, I believe, by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would inhibit the customary passage of those Bills. It would disturb the comity between the two Houses and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, with his genial touch of eloquent humour, we all know what comity is. It is the way in which the two Houses customarily transact their business.
Thirdly, and perhaps even more importantly in view of the suggestion that this should serve as a way of remedying a want of time for such economic debates, a debate taken at short notice would serve little purpose as, without notice of questions to be raised, no satisfactory answer could be given. Indeed, if such order of debate is to ensue after the passage of the Bill, that is a matter for your Lordships to decide on its merits on any particular occasion. In that regard I say with respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that that surely serves the public interest and also the interests of your Lordships' House.
There is no precedent for this proposal. To introduce the proposal in that memorandum would be a clear and distinct departure from precedent which would serve no useful purpose.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, we have had a good run round this course and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Perhaps I may try to deal with some of the easier matters first.
1578
The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parry, about speaking in the gap falls into that category. There was much debate, as there always has been, about the word "brief" and whether we should be more specific about how long noble Lords should be allowed to speak. It is a matter of horses for courses, as is so frequently the case. It is unfair to those who have travelled long distances, as the noble Lord said. He said that he finds himself listening to a great many speakers from whom the House has heard a great many times. That is an impossible problem to resolve, but there is sympathy for the point that the noble Lord made.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I am grateful for that specific reference to my point. I also implied that in time-limited debates the gap disappears. Therefore, not only have we lost the time within the time but we have lost the chance to speak in other debates.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct. However, if a debate is to be timed, that is a voluntary exercise and one has entered into an agreement that the debate should be timed.
I should like to deal next with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I was naturally glad of his support on the matter of Consolidated Fund Bills. The noble Lord raised the question of one-hour Unstarred Questions. That is an idea which we have been mulling over for some time. It seemed to us that frequently, as was the case on Monday night, there is no government business of affirmative instruments to be dealt with and that it might please noble Lords to have the opportunity, provided they would accept that the matter had to be dealt with within one hour, to deal with Unstarred Questions at a more reasonable hour instead of the debates beginning at the end of Business, which can be a very vague time—as it will be tonight as a result of this discussion. That is a voluntary exercise and as an experiment it is to be commended. It will not suit everybody by a long chalk, but it may suit certain noble Lords. That would not in any way interfere with the Government's need to put their affirmative orders through the House, but there is not usually an urgent timescale about most such orders which could be packed together and dealt with on other occasions.
I turn now to the difficulties encountered by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. We all had a great deal of sympathy for him a few days ago on the occasion to which he referred when there were 25 speakers in his debate which was limited to two and a half hours and there were only six speakers in the preceding debate. The report might perhaps have made the position a little clearer in paragraph 5, where it reads:
"No freedom is available to change the time allocated".
That could perhaps have been better expressed as "no freedom is presently available". The position has been left unaltered. Many changes have been made in respect of other timed debates. Debates of two and a half hours on an ordinary debating day have been changed to two hours and three hours. Many variations can be made in that respect.

1579
The Procedure Committee has not got round to considering whether it would be a good idea to make the same sort of variation in balloted debates. That raises rather more complex issues, curiously enough. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that when one enters into a balloted debate one is gambling. The gamble extends also to whether the debate to be held on the same afternoon as one's own is more interesting. There is an element of risk attached to the matter and I do not believe that we could devise a procedure which would totally satisfy every situation which could arise.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but my point was that the preceding debate did not take up the two and a half hours allocated to it despite the fact that there was no time limit on speeches. Time was still available. I merely asked that the committee could consider some flexibility in that respect. Otherwise Back-Benchers are penalised.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I was about to say that that is a matter which the Procedure Committee has not gone into in detail. I shall be pleased to place it upon the agenda for the next meeting when we shall discuss it further.
I hope that I have dealt with all the points that have been raised other than the extremely important matter of Consolidated Fund Bills. As I have already said, I was delighted to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I was equally delighted to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
I am quite certain that those three noble Lords are correct. However, a number of your Lordships do not feel the same way. It is the arrival of those Bills unannounced which means that the notice given will be extremely short. If one takes the last three Consolidated Fund Bills in this Session, the time between the Bill receiving a First Reading in the Commons and the receipt of that Bill for us to pass through all its stages has never exceeded a week. The Commons normally have a gap of three or four days between First Reading and taking the Bill through all its stages. It means that we could only be certain perhaps three days ahead that we shall have those Bills to pass through all their stages. That does not give an opportunity for a debate to be considered and the Motion (if there were to be a Motion) put down.
The suggestion has been made that one could have such a debate on the Motion that all stages of the Bill should be taken in one day. That would hardly be relevant. I am not certain that anyone will know what it was that people wished to speak about. It is the difficulty of constructing a well-focused debate that is my main objection, and the Committee endorses my feelings. It is the wrong occasion to have a big debate on a most important subject.
The key question therefore is whether the House has enough opportunities to discuss issues concerning economics and public spending.
4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, I should be most grateful if he would deal with this matter. Has any contact been made with another place as to the giving of more notice of the arrival of those Bills? Has it been asked whether there is any real difficulty about giving a little more notice?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I have not asked that specific question. However, it is my understanding that they do not know in another place when the Bill will arrive. It is in the hands of the Treasury. My noble friend may recollect whether he bothered to let the Government know sufficiently in advance of receiving a Consolidated Fund Bill. I do not know the precise answer. But I know that in the three instances in this Session there have never been more than seven days between the First Reading in the Commons and the receipt of the Bill in your Lordships' House.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sorry to press my noble friend further. Before coming to a final decision based on this difficulty, would it not be worth while at least to ascertain from another place whether there is any practical difficulty in arranging a convention, if you like, that they allow a few more days' notice? Before we took a decision based on this difficulty, would it not be as well to know the answer?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I shall certainly find out the precise answer to that question. However, I am still filled with doubt as to whether that is the right occasion on which to have such a debate.
That brings me, I hope in conclusion, to the question of whether the House has enough opportunity to discuss issues concerning economics and public spending. I certainly echo the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and other noble Lords who have pointed out that the House is blessed with great expertise in these fields. I do not believe that the Commons' primacy over legislation in such matters should in any way prevent the House of Lords from debating them.
However, it should be remembered that those issues are not neglected in the House. In 1992 there were four general debates on the economy, and another on unemployment. They were all given either five hours or no time limit. In addition there were two-hour or two-and-a-half hour debates on subjects such as industry and capital management, unemployment in manufacturing, the economy in the North West, the economy in the North East, and industrial policy. Unstarred Questions covered issues such as the Bank of England and export credit guarantees. Economic issues are often raised in Starred Questions and Ministerial Statements. Concern about public spending impacts on all our debates about major policies such as health, education and defence. A Second Reading of a Finance Bill is not the only occasion when legislation provides an opportunity to discuss these matters.
I believe that the House would wish to decide whether it would be right to single out debates on

1581
these subjects as requiring a special procedure or whether current arrangements are not generally enough to provide a reasonable balance of subjects.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked what would happen if a noble Lord chose to intervene on the debate. The answer is that it lies with the House to decide the fate of the noble Lord on that occasion. I do not believe—I hope that the House will concur—that we wish to embark on making more rules. The fewer the rules there are, the better. The House manages its affairs far better than anyone else is likely to. I hope that I have said enough.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, could the noble Lord deal with the issue of principle? I refer to the question of comity between the two Houses. The document states that,
"the principle of comity … would suggest that the House of Lords should not decide to discuss money Bills on which there is no debate in the House of Commons".
As has been raised by my noble friend and others, that gives the House of Commons a veto on what may be discussed in this House on Second Readings. I hope that the noble Lord will bear in mind that the House of Commons used to discuss Consolidated Fund Bills, as my noble friend Lord Cocks pointed out. Therefore its decision not to discuss Consolidated Fund Bills under this particular sentence would preclude this House, willy-nilly, from doing so. It surely must be wrong that the House of Commons decides our procedures.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I do not believe that there is the slightest suggestion that we should be bound by the procedures of another place any more than it should be bound by ours.
I do not even know with certainty how to pronounce that word "comity".
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, it is pronounced "comity".
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to my noble and learned friend. It is not a word that many of us use frequently in normal conversation. I believe that it means good relations between the two Houses. I see no reason why the tremendously good manners which prevail in this House among ourselves should not be extended to another place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord says and indeed appreciate his good will. However, the words are written down in this document; and the recommendation is what we shall pass, if we do so. It is not what the noble Lord says but what is written down that we shall agree to. It seems to me that it is a dangerous sentence which gives the House of Commons the right to tell us what we may discuss, and indeed what our Standing Orders may be.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I cannot believe that it could be interpreted in that way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask this. He was good
1582
enough to answer one of my two questions as to what would happen if someone tried to speak on a Consolidated Fund Bill. But he did not answer the other question as to what would happen if someone desired to speak on the Motion to take the various stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill on the same day. Perhaps he could answer that.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the answer has to be exactly the same. The House decides these matters.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he did not deal with my objection to paragraph 5 which suggests that the subject matter of short debates should not raise fundamental or wide-ranging issues. Nor did he deal with my objection that the usual channels should ensure that Motions were appropriate. It was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I should perhaps have referred to the fact that advice can be given by the Clerks when Motions are being put down. That is advisory only. No one is inviting the Clerks to assume heavy responsibilities. The recommendation is merely advisory; a peer or a noble Lord is entitled to make his own decision, contrary to the advice which he may receive.
If the House now agrees that it is time that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was able to proceed with his debate, then I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Democracy
4.10 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvelrose to call attention to the case for local democracy, and in particular to the role of local authorities in providing housing, welfare, educational and cultural services for the benefit of the communities which they serve, and to the financial constraints under which they now operate in providing those services; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg finally to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Motion calls attention to three themes, all of which, as I hope to show, are interlinked. The first is what I call the constitutional question of the relationship between different levels of democratic decision-making in a pluralistic society such as we have; the case, in other words, for local democracy.
The second theme calls attention to the services that local government can and should provide and I hope to demonstrate that the principle of subsidiarity applies just as strongly from Westminster downwards as it does from Brussels to Westminster. The third theme deals with local expenditure and local taxation and, as a consequence, with local accountability.
Let me start with the constitutional theme. It is, in our view, self-evident that local authorities, properly and duly elected, are a basic element in our constitutional structure; that central and local

1583
government must recognise their interdependence and conduct their relationship on the basis of consultation, openness and respect. I should have thought that those principles would command general acceptance, but the truth is that throughout the 1980s and early 1990s there has been a stream of legislation, Bill after Bill, attacking those very principles. We have now reached the point where a Whitehall spokesman can brief the press that the Prime Minister wishes to call an end to "head-butting" between central and local government; and where the Conservative chairman of the Association of County Councils—itself Tory controlled—describes the Government's attitudes as "obnoxious". There is, in other words, a crisis in local democracy.
Of course, the rhetoric is now starting to change, but I hope that I will not be accused of being unduly cynical if I note that we are coming fairly close to the county council elections, and on those occasions the children must be given sweets. But the Prime Minister would like to see a renaissance in local government: the Minister for local government confesses dismay—he would be very worried, he says, if he thought that the result of their reforms was going to be to centralise power. But the Prime Minister and the Minister are a little late. Local government has already almost been brought to its knees in the past decade. It will take more than a few kind words on the eve of local elections to restore what has been so recklessly smashed over a period of years.
Let me give your Lordships some examples of what I mean by that. In doing so, I come to the second major theme contained in the Motion: the services that local authorities should properly provide. I do not wish to go into the vexed question of local government reorganisation, although other noble Lords may wish to do so. I only say that sensible reorganisation starts from the point of asking where local loyalties lie; what is the nature of the community with which people can identify? The inquiry then asks what services are required, moves to the point of asking what is the optimal combination between economies of scale and local identification and moves finally to a decision. The community is the centre, the enabler, ensuring that demands for services are met, sometimes on their own and sometimes in partnerships, of which there may be a great variety depending on the nature of the service required. That is the way to proceed. In other words, not to put too fine a point on it, the process moves in precisely the opposite direction to that taken by the Welsh Office in its recent White Paper.
The Motion lists four headings under which local authority services may be grouped. I accept that those headings are in themselves arbitrary. I have no intention of listing seriatim all the services that local government can provide. I only refer those noble Lords who are keen to find out to Annex A of the second consultative paper on Scottish local government reorganisation, where a total of 69 different functions are set out. Not all of those can be performed without the close assistance of central government. There are obviously degrees of subsidiarity. For example, in order to avoid central authority
1584
poking its nose into every nook and cranny, if I may borrow that expression from the Foreign Secretary, it would be absurd for burials and cremations to be administered at anything other than the lowest tier of government. The same goes for community councils, food hygiene, street markets, and the collection and disposal of waste. Equally obviously, crime prevention, social services, transport, emergency planning, arts, leisure and recreation require an administrative infrastructure which is rather more developed.
The point is that all those services are essentially local authority functions and need to be performed or led by authorities who are sensitive, and compelled to be sensitive through the operation of the ballot box, to the communities that they serve.
What has happened over the past decade or so? What has happened is that more and more of those vital functions of local authorities have been taken over, either in whole or in part, by central government or unelected quangos. It is that process that has led to the demoralisation of local government that is so apparent today. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example: housing. It is, I believe—and I hope the Minister will accept this—common ground right across the political spectrum that there is a severe need for social housing in the United Kingdom. Indeed, an Audit Commission report of May 1992 estimates the need at between 58,000 and 90,000 units per annum throughout the period up to the year 2000. The commission went on to write that the available resources would be more effectively used if there was a single, unambiguous national strategy for housing.
Since that report, it has become increasingly evident that despite the efforts of the housing associations, which play a valuable role, it is the local authorities which are the proper agency to co-ordinate and operate such a strategy, not least because of the responsibilities laid on local authorities for the renovation of the private sector housing stock.
In the face of that problem, in the face of the Audit Commission's recommendations, what has been the Government's response? Leaving aside the extent of resources made available, the Government's response has been one of sustained attack on local authority housing departments, in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Now we see it again in the Housing and Urban Development Bill before your Lordships' House; and an unelected, unaccountable body, the Housing Corporation, taking upon itself a role in strategic decisions about housing spending—cutting right across the role of local authorities responsible to their own electorate. No wonder the whole thing is in such a mess.
But not only is it a mess; it is a mess that appears to have been very carefully planned. The 1987 White Paper set it out all too clearly. Housing associations would be the new providers of social housing. Local authorities should, over time, divest themselves of a landlord role. Nevertheless, the White Paper argued:
"Local authorities should increasingly see themselves as enablers who ensure that everyone in their area is adequately housed".
It is quite simple. The Government say to the local authorities: "You have the legal responsibility, but we will pay somebody else the money".

1585
Nor did that very careful planning stop at the 1987 White Paper. It is, as I understand it, still the basis of government housing policy. Authorities are to develop "strategies", concentrating on the renovation of private and public housing stock and the need for new housing. At the same time, the Housing Corporation has as its principal aim, according to its own management statement,
"to secure, through housing associations, a supply of decent and affordable housing for people in priority need".
So there are two sets of worthy bodies trying to do the same thing but answerable to different masters and working on different systems of finance; and only one—the local authorities—has statutory responsibilities which bear heavily on the provision of housing, such as planning, community care and care of children. No wonder the Audit Commission concluded (in its delicate language) that:
"It is not clear that two separate channels for allocating resources are either efficient or effective".
Housing is only one area in which there is confusion, consequent inefficiency and low morale. Everywhere we look, new quangos have sprouted: 11 urban development corporations, their members appointed by the Secretary of State; 82 training and enterprise councils, managing local training and enterprise programmes, the chairmen appointed by the Secretary of State; some 180 district health authorities; 90 family health service authorities, all central government-funded with chairmen appointed by the Secretary of State; and some 300 NHS trusts, chairmen appointed by the Secretary of State. There is also the further education funding council; the new funding agency for schools and our friend the new urban regeneration agency, all presently under discussion in this House, chairmen appointed by the Secretary of State.
To whom are all those bodies accountable? They are accountable to the Secretary of State who appointed them. In the case of Wales, the Secretary of State for Wales, given that the Welsh Office is multi-functional, has the power of patronage in all central government activities within the Principality. So he appoints all the chairmen of all the Welsh authorities in the areas that I have mentioned. What a marvellous opportunity for jobs for the boys! And what a marvellous opportunity for corruption.
I turn now to my third theme: the financial constraints under which local authorities operate. I have no wish to bandy figures with the Minister; I regard that as a sterile pastime. I am much more concerned with the financial relationship between central and local government, since that lies at the heart of the general constitutional problem with which I began.
Noble Lords will recall—indeed who does not recall?—the monstrous fiasco that was known as the poll tax. It was perhaps Mr. Michael Howard, the present Secretary of State for the Environment, who predicted its effect most accurately. It would, he said in February 1988:
"give power to the people … . As local people grasp the significance of the new power we are giving them, they will not be slow to use it".
1586
He was absolutely right—though not, I imagine, in the way he intended. The "local people" that he referred to certainly used their power in a succession of by-elections that forced the dumping of a Prime Minister and a total climb-down by the subsequent Government.
Just over two years and £19 billion later we are landed with another conundrum. In the switch out of the poll tax the Treasury had to find large sums of money to fund the financial black hole that was left. The formula it devised, it must be said, was extremely ingenious. VAT would be raised and local authorities would be compensated for the loss of locally raised revenue by an equivalent sum from the Exchequer. But—and this is the important point—that process reduced the proportion of local authority revenue raised by local tax quite dramatically. Instead of being (depending on the type of authority) on either side of 50 per cent., as it was in the mid-1980s, it has become on either side of 15 per cent.
The effect of that change has been profound and, I believe, has not yet been fully appreciated. Put crudely, it means that the Treasury, through the operation of the revenue support grant and the distribution of the national business rate, now controls 85 per cent. of local government revenues. Furthermore, authorities are then told, through the mechanism of standard spending assessments and capping, how much they can raise from their electorate. So the whole of the cake is simply awarded by central government. The only decision that the authorities have to make is how to divide it up. To quote again the Conservative chairman of the Conservative Association of County Councils:
"The man who pays the piper calls the tune. The Government is paying up all the money. They are saying we have an absolute right to say what should happen".
What the chairman did not add, but I will, is that it is a system of which the old Soviet Union would have been proud. For the truth is that we now have a highly developed economic command system in the local government sector. But like all command systems, as Stalin's successors found out, there is a potentially fatal flaw. One can control the supply quite easily, but for the system to work one has to be sure what the demand is. It is no good delivering 10 tonnes of potatoes to a village where the demand is for only three tonnes. Equally, it is no good delivering three tonnes where the demand is for 10. In the first case, the result is a pile of rotting potatoes; in the second case, the result is inflation or rationing. That is why we are seeing cuts in services in local authorities.
What is the remedy to this situation? It so happens that part of the answer was provided by the Treasury itself, in a White Paper on public expenditure planning produced in 1988, when the present Prime Minister, as we know, was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The idea was simple: central government planning totals should exclude local authority expenditure if it was financed by local authorities themselves. That, after all, is how others do it. Indeed, federal authorities such as Germany could not do it in any other way; so why should not we?
Next, we must increase the proportion of their own revenue for which local authorities are responsible.

1587
There seems to be no reason at all why the business rate should not be returned to local jurisdiction. After all, it will be in their interest, in an economic world as competitive as the one we live in, to keep that rate as low as possible to attract investment into their area.
Finally, we must re-establish the direct democratic link between authorities and the communities which they serve. In our view the best way to achieve that would be to ensure that there are frequent opportunities for the electorate to express its views on the performance of its representatives. There should be open debate on the trade-off—we have to accept that it is a trade-off—between level of local tax and the provision of local services.
Above all—and I return now to the constitutional question with which I started—we must all recognise that local democracy is about spreading power. Inevitably that means recognising that our political opponents, however much we disagree with them, are part of a healthy, democratic system with proper checks and balances. There has been far too much cronyism, far too many attempts to smash all opposition and far too much arrogance under the Conservative Governments that we have had. Local democracy is a vital element in the balance of forces that make for a truly free society. It must be nurtured and encouraged and not be killed off. That, I hope, will be the message of today's debate.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I welcome the opportunity we have today to discuss this vital issue, to put the Government's view of local democracy and the role of local authorities in providing essential services, and to set the record straight.
I begin with a quotation.
"We are moving rapidly towards a system in which central government, by the final power of the purse, will have effectively destroyed the supposed, though admittedly limited, autonomy of the local authorities".
The noble Lord's opening speech, and indeed much that is said about local government, chimes with that view. It is a picture of central government bent on centralisation and increasing its control and of local government losing its independence and its functions, starved of funds, impotent and on the verge of extinction.
The quotation is from G.D.H. Cole just after the First World War. Charges of centralisation and the decline of local government are a constant theme of central-local relations since at least that time. And yet, for all that apparent 70 years of centralisation, stripping of functions, underfunding and all the rest, the one constant in local government is the inexorable rise in real terms in local authority spending. Even over the past 14 years, when the assault has supposedly been at its most intense, I see that local government spending in England has risen by 15 per cent. in real terms.
It does not square, does it? Local government is stripped of its functions and yet is spending ever more
1588
money. Our starting point in this debate should be to cast aside the myths and woolly thinking and begin at the beginning.
First, let me look at day-to-day control over local government and local authorities' freedom of action. We in Britain are probably unique in Europe in having no general system of state supervision of local authorities—no prefects, no governors, no commissioners, no voivodes, to approve, confirm or otherwise second-guess local authority decisions. We are also unusual in having no state approved manual which sets out how local authority officers and councillors are to act in any given situation. And we are unusual in having no hierarchy of local government, with one tier supervising the actions of the tier below it. In all this we differ from most European countries. Indeed, visitors to my department from overseas are quite staggered by government's lack of control.
We have government inspectorates, that is true, but their role is almost exclusively advisory. They do not generally have powers to impose their views on local authorities. We also have a few powers of appeal where central government can overturn local authority decisions, such as in planning appeals or school closures. But we clearly do not have the power and day-to-day control over local government that is the reality in much of Europe.
I can hear noble Lords opposite say, "But in many European countries the trend is now to decentralisation, while in Britain it seems to be precisely the opposite". It is often the case in Europe that there is a difference between theory and reality. I recall reading in the Local Government Chronicle a few months ago an interview with a French mayor who said that the apparently great changes in France were mainly theory. The reality was that he still needed the sous-préfet's de facto agreement to any action. It is as well to remember that heavily centralised states such as France or Sweden can decentralise and yet remain considerably more centralised than the United Kingdom.
But is the trend in Britain towards greater state control? It is often forgotten, particularly by noble Lords opposite, that one of the first actions of the incoming Conservative Government in 1979 was a bonfire of some 300 controls over local government. And they were detailed controls—the sort that are now being abolished on the Continent to the sound of warm approval from British local government. Let me give just one example. Before our bonfire of controls every local authority proposal for a capital spending project had to be examined in detail by the Government and approved by them. Take housing, for example. The Government set national house building standards—the Parker Morris standards. Projects had to satisfy those standards in every detail if they were to have a chance of being approved. The DoE had armies of architects, quantity surveyors, civil engineers and all sorts of other experts who were kept fully occupied poring over local authorities' plans, discussing detailed specifications with their experts and second-guessing local housing decisions.
What about financial controls? How much freedom do our local authorities have to decide their own

1589
spending priorities? The noble Lord, Lord Williams, explained the problems that he had with how the money was raised. What counts is the ability to spend. In 1993–94 local authorities in England will spend some £70 billion. Of that sum only £16 billion—nearly a quarter—is received in the form of specific grant and allocated by the Government to specific purposes. That means that local councillors themselves decide how the remaining £54 billion is spent. Local councillors decide the service and spending priorities of 77 per cent. of local government spending. It is worth remembering that that constitutes over a fifth of total public expenditure. Together with their planning and economic powers, it gives local authorities enormous potential power to influence the life and development of their areas and citizens.
The charge is sometimes made that capping is an attack on local democracy. Perhaps in an ideal world we could give local authorities carte blanche to tax and spend as much as they like and not worry about the consequences. But we live in the real world. We do not have infinite resources—quite the opposite. Local government expenditure is a major part of public expenditure and as such can exert a significant influence on the development of the economy.
This year's RSG settlement in England allows for a 3.5 per cent. increase in local government spending, taking account of changes of functions. That compares with inflation currently at 1.9 per cent. and a public sector pay restraint policy range of zero to 1.5 per cent.
There can be no doubt of this Government's commitment to democracy and in particular local democracy. But they, unlike the Opposition parties, do not equate local democracy with the protection and maintenance of vested interest. We believe that the functions of local government have been given to it because Parliament believes that those functions are best organised at local level. But central government has to set standards and be there to protect people when local government does not deliver adequate services. Time and again we have seen local authorities let down the people by whom they have been elected.
Central government is also responsible to Parliament and the country for the huge amounts of taxpayers' money that is spent by local government. We have a duty to ensure that the money is spent efficiently and effectively and in the provision of good and responsive services to the citizen.
That means our policy towards local government must be based on increasing value for money, responsiveness and accountability. We have therefore pushed forward the idea of the enabling authority—the principle that a local authority does not have to provide every aspect of every service with its own directly employed staff. Through compulsory competitive tendering we have ensured that authorities obtain services delivered from the most efficient, effective and economical source.
That does not entail any diminution of the power of the local government. On the contrary, CCT and the enabling authority have freed authorities from the conflict that is inevitable in the direct provision of
1590
services. We are freeing authorities to be unequivocally on the side of the citizen, to be the champions of the consumer and to secure value for money and responsive change in the whole culture of local government. We are now seeing a move towards a performance and consumer-oriented culture. The Citizen's Charter and performance measurement will act as a shop window to illustrate the progress that local government is making. It will spread best practice and it will help local authorities gain a new respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned subsidiarity. In this context I prefer to call it "localisation". Parliament has given local government the services it now provides because it believes that those services are best organised at a local level. But sometimes even the best local authority can appear remote and unresponsive to the citizen receiving the service. That is why, when possible, such as with schools or services to council tenants, our policy has been to bring the organisation of services as near to the consumer as possible. That is localisation. It is all about empowering the citizen to have as much direct influence on services as possible.
Housing is one of the areas where we are particularly keen to develop local authorities' role as enablers. We want them to reinforce local democracy by working for local communities to ensure that housing need is met and not to turn themselves into monopoly providers like the worst examples of municipal socialism seen in the past. We want to get rid of the idea that the measure of success for a council's housing policy is the number of units that it builds itself. What matters is whether the needs of its local community are met, not who provides or who owns the homes. That is why the Citizen's Charter made clear our determination to make housing management less remote and insensitive. If tenants do not have the opportunity to set out their priorities, to tell an authority where it is going wrong and what it is doing right and to make their voices heard, then an authority can have little chance of securing their satisfaction in the long term.
If I may turn briefly to education, legislation throughout the 1980s progressively increased the accountability and responsiveness of schools to parents. The Government have strengthened the representation of parents on school governing bodies and have enhanced the role of individual governing bodies in the running of schools. Our experience is that just as the people best placed to take key decisions about the management of the school are its governors and head teachers, so they are the most responsive to parents' views and, when there are problems, to parents' concerns.
Local authorities also have important and wide ranging responsibilities for social services. During the past three years local authorities have been implementing a number of significant new initiatives: the Children Act, the new community care arrangements and the implications of the Criminal Justice Act. The Government have recognised the implications of all these and have fairly funded

1591
authorities to tackle them. Overall standing spending in 1993–94 for social services will be some £5.5 billion, an increase of a third in real terms since 1990–91.
In the cultural field, local authorities have a statutory duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient public library service. They too have been funded to do this.
In conclusion, it is not true that the Government are bent on centralisation and trampling local democracy underfoot. It is not true that we have increased and are increasing the controls over local government. It is not true that local authorities are impotent bodies with little control over services and little chance to influence their areas. On the contrary, the Government believe strongly in local democracy and local leadership. That is why we resist the temptation to make more use of specific grants. That is why our policy has been to encourage local government, through the enabling authority and localisation, to be more responsive to the consumer.
Much of the anguish and propaganda that we hear is the sound of vested interest whining because we have dared to put the interest of the citizen above that of a cushy life for providers. This Government are about empowering the citizen and empowering the local authority to serve the citizen better. Much of local government now shares that objective. This debate gives the Labour Party the opportunity to demonstrate that it too shares that objective. I regret and fear that, with the notable exception of the contribution of my noble friend Lord Prentice, the debate will disappoint me.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, does not very often rouse my sympathy. He is not the kind of man who creates that emotion in me. But today I must say that I have never heard him or any other Minister have a worse brief to promote a worse case. He has no case to present and that is why it has been such a deplorable performance. He had to quote G.D.H. Cole, who, incidentally, got it wrong nearly every time. The noble Lord had to go back to him to support his argument.
I do not believe that the noble Lord understands what this whole argument is about and I do not believe that many of the people behind him do; or, if they do, why are they not here to support him? Either they know that he has an impossibly bad case and they agree with us, or else they cannot think of anything to say in his defence. I have great sympathy with them. There is nothing to say in his defence.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has, if you like, the advantage of me—but the disadvantage on this occasion—that he did not live through the rise of the despotisms in Europe. What made me a incurable Liberal was that I was in Germany in the summer of 1932. I am not saying that the noble Lord, despite his hair style, is in any way a budding Hitler, but what happened then was that bit by bit the countervailing powers which make it safe to have strong central government were whittled away until all power was at the centre. That is what happened and that is why the
1592
distribution of power is the most important central principle of any democracy. When that is undermined democracy goes out of the window.
One of the most important countervailing powers is local government—local government, with all its limitations and defects. Of course it is not perfect, but local government, however inadequate and however much in need of reform, is a very powerful countervailing power. In some ways I go along with the criticism of aspects of local government. After all, I live in Lambeth. The noble Lord cannot tell me anything about what goes wrong in local government. But let me say to him that people put it right themselves. Did he notice that in a recent by-election there was a most outstanding swing towards the Liberal Democrats in protest against what the Labour council of Lambeth had been doing? People take matters into their own hands when they need to. They do not have to be told by central government what they need to do.
The noble Lord gives the impression that he thinks that central government graciously allows local government to develop. It is the other way round. Real democracy comes from the ground upwards, not from the centre downwards. Running throughout the noble Lord's speech was the idea that powers were graciously given from the centre to allow people at local level to do what central government thought it was good and right that they should do. That is not the way democracy works, and the sooner the noble Lord realises that and the implications of it, the better.
There are a number of ways in which local government has been undermined. The noble Lord had the nerve to talk about housing. How many times in your Lordships' House have we asked that the money that local government already has be used for housing? We have been told that it is not allowed to use it. Is that giving local government control over its housing? How many times in recent debates have we made the point on education that local authority powers in connection with education are being whittled away? Is that the development of local government? Is that local democracy?
Why are there all these quangos? Why cannot these matters be left to the control of local people? On occasions there is a case for a quango. I am not automatically anti-quango. We have seen quango after quango developed, and who gets on them? Will the noble Lord tell us how many of the chairmen of quangos who have been appointed have been members of parties other than the Conservative Party? It will be very interesting if we can have an answer to that question. This countervailing power lies at the centre of the whole argument and it is vitally necessary that it should be maintained.
However, there are other questions about local government which need to be considered if local government is to be what it ought to be. Let us not forget that it is the training ground of democrats. People learn through taking part in local government what democracy is all about. In my own party—some of them will not be listening—I have seen some very odd young men and women elected to local councils. In six months one would not know them because the

1593
responsibility of having to make a decision—for example, that either one puts up the rates and makes oneself unpopular or one denies a scheme that one would have liked to have put into operation—provides training in which people learn what democracy is about. They learn what is possible and what is not possible. They also learn responsibility, and there is no other way of doing so.
If one discourages, by limiting what local government can do, ordinary citizens from giving themselves to the work of local government—it is a very heavy responsibility which they undertake in terms of time and commitment—then one is undermining the very springs from which democrats grow, which is a very dangerous thing to do. In any case, local people very often know best what is needed in their own area. Even if central government departments are as wonderful as we are told they are—and some of us have grave doubts about that—they cannot really know what is needed in local districts.
Local people can get at their local councillors, and that is what matters. The noble Lord will know, as everyone in this House knows, many people in all parties who have given a great deal of their time to local government. It is a very hard task because their constituents are around them all the time. If one is chairman of a local housing committee, one's telephone rings morning, noon and night—and, from my observation, especially at night. One cannot escape from it. Even a Member of Parliament can get away from his constituents in a way in which very few local councillors can, but that is democracy in action and how people learn what it is all about.
I agree that there are things about local government which are not right. We need two very important changes. We need local government to have more real responsibility for what is undertaken. That means raising a higher proportion of the money expense itself, and not depending on what the Government decide it should have. For that we need a sensible system of local government finance. We on these Benches have urged again and again that local government should be financed by local income tax, which is fair, and local voters can see—just as national voters can when it comes to voting for central government—how the money that they are asked to pay is to be spent. They can criticise that in terms of value for the money they have had to give to local government. Surely, that is the essential way of doing it.
We also need to have local government which is genuinely representative. One of the great troubles has been that under our electoral system, they are not genuinely representative. If we had proportional representation (we are not in Italy) for local government, we would never have had the extremist local councils to which the noble Lord has referred and which have given some slight colour to some of the criticisms which he has made.
I shall be very interested to learn whether the Labour Party, in its present consideration of proportional representation is prepared to commit itself to proportional representation for local
1594
government. There would be a much better representation of local interests if that took place. I am extremely interested to see the noble Lord nodding his head because what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and in this case the gander is central government.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, we should thank my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for giving us the opportunity for this debate. I wish to commence with an essential service which was carried out with great competence by local authorities. I am talking about the provision of water. My noble friend Lord Howell is with me. Birmingham's water was some of the finest in the country. It was not provided by Labour, socialist municipalisation; it was provided in the first instance by Joseph Chamberlain.
At the moment public officials are showing very serious anxiety about hepatitis and dysentery arising from the serious action of cutting off the water supply to many households. I say to the Minister that last year 21,000 households in England and Wales were disconnected from their water supply, a rise of 17 per cent. on the previous year. I say to the Minister very sincerely that we have to recognise that the people who are disconnected have to live in the real world as well. Birmingham was one of the local authorities, with Bristol, Liverpool and Sheffield, where densely populated communities were without water for two solid weeks. Therefore, the real problem for the public health officials now is very serious.
As regards the seriousness of the disconnection of water, water prices have risen throughout Britain by an average of nearly 50 per cent. in the past five years. But that increase has not been matched by any increases in housing benefit or income support, so the people who are suffering are the poorest people. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that the Housing Act 1985 defines a house without an adequate supply of wholesome water and an effective drainage system, as a house which is not fit for human habitation. It will come about that local authorities will have to take legal action against water authorities because it is they who are breaking the law and making the houses in which people live unfit for human habitation. It is up to the Government to make quite sure that local authorities do not have to take on the water authorities. But drastic action is necessary.
The disconnection of the water supply has taken us back into the 19th century. It would never have occurred under the local authorities. I say to my noble friend Lord Howell that I am convinced that Birmingham would never have cut off anybody's water supply. I feel that that would be the same situation with Manchester, Liverpool and the other places. But there is a moral aspect to this.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, one minute!
Lord Howell: My Lords, I shall be 30 seconds. When I was the Minister of State responsible for water

1595
for five years, I forbade any water authority to cut off water supplies. I insisted that they negotiated with the social services department to overcome the problem.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, this is a moral issue. While on the one hand the poorest are having their water cut off, on the other hand, the highest salaries ever are being paid to the people who manage the water supply. Those people never put anything into the building of the water supply, but just happened to be around at the time of privatisation. Their salaries are a disgrace in view of the moral issue. In fact, some of them could pay off the water bills of those whose water supplies they are disconnecting.
I turn now to another of the Government's schemes, the assisted places scheme. Again, the Government thought that that would be a laudable scheme, but it overspent its estimated budget by more than £10 million in 1991–92. Many of the pupils receiving places under the scheme now have all of their fees paid because the cost of the places has increased and there may be unemployment in their family. I repeat that there has been an overspend of £10 million. If a local authority had overspent by £10 million, down would come the big chopper well and truly, and the Government would say that education was being wasted, but they do not say that now because they are overspending.
I turn now to another small example about which local authorities are crying out all over the country. I cannot be the only Member of your Lordships' House who has found that my largest postbag over the past three weeks has reflected the fear that is felt all around the country about nursery schools being closed. I have received literally hundreds of letters about that. I do not know much about Hounslow, but I should think that practically every parent in Hounslow has written to me about this. On the one hand therefore the assisted places scheme is allowed to overspend; but, at the other end of the scale, nursery schools, from which everybody knows that children benefit, are suffering. We can see those two sides and we understand why there is a difference and that one group of people is being given greater benefits than the other.
I do not think that the Government have any housing policy at all. When they go to bed at night they think that somebody will come up with a good scheme. But what have we found? Perhaps the Minister can tell me how many tenancies have been created over shops. He spoke at great length about a terrific number of thousands of homes being created over shops; but can he give us any information about the number of people who now live over shops? Has it increased?
Do housing associations charge affordable rents? Is it not true to say that too many of the local authorities which thought that they would form their properties into housing associations have been passed over? The Minister is now having to say, "Only a few at a time". Why? Because the cost of housing benefit went right out of the window. When the Government agreed to that policy, they did not realise that the cost of housing benefit would rise so much because they did not realise that, under the most recent housing legislation, local authority tenants have to pay so
1596
much towards housing benefit. Those who can afford to pay have to help those who cannot. However, that does not apply to the tenants of housing association properties. The Minister is now saying, "We cannot have that—it costs too much money". Again, that is a scheme that went completely wrong.
I am not entirely sure, but I believe that there has recently been a Question in the House about the number of properties being held by Her Majesty's Forces. I believe that they are to be transferred to a new, non-profit-making body in the private sector. Does the Minister know anybody in the private sector who does anything for no profit? I do not. But the mind boggles.
I turn now to housing policy for the elderly. In the past, local authorities recognised that elderly people were living in houses that were much too large for them and so they created nice residential homes for the elderly. But the Government said, "No, we cannot do that. We must have some private homes", so private nursing homes started up. I was not against private nursing homes; but, here again, expenditure on them rose by £20 million a year because their charges could be claimed as social security benefits. The Government did not realise that at the time, and they have now clamped down. After April of this year, residents in such homes will be allowed to have only a certain amount of the charges paid under social security benefits and then, if they are new to the property, they will have to ask their relations to pay the rest.
Another problem which the Government did not fully appreciate at the time was that involved in transferring people from mental hospitals into the community. That is another burden that is being placed on the local authorities. A report in the British Medical Journal only a fortnight ago referred to the fact that the money that should be accompanying patients into the community in the form of dowries is not being paid. About 850 people went out into the community from such hospitals in the previous 12 months and £300 million should have been passed from the hospitals to the local authorities for their care, but just £12 million was passed over. That is another burden that has to be picked up by the local authorities.
The Minister may think that there is local democracy, but it is being eroded. We must recognise that, as others have said, local authorities do not comprise elected councillors only, but that many of the officers whom they employ live in the local area. Therefore, when local councillors draw their attention to something, such as holes in the road, they can quickly say, "Yes, I travel down that road every day myself, and I know what you are talking about". That means that people do not have to emphasise their points because the officials are aware of the problems. One cannot expect civil servants at Westminster to know what is going on in Bradford, Leeds, Birmingham or Manchester.
It is important that we understand what local democracy means and that the disciplines of control are being challenged. Those disciplines are being broken down by the Government who move in people

1597
to serve on what the noble Baroness referred to as "quangos", but what other people call "appointed bodies". Instead of democratically elected persons serving on such bodies, we are now getting what has been described as the "new lay elite"—people who are being chosen by the Government. The Minister may well look up, but it was only two or three days ago that the Home Office Minister discussed the new set-up and said that he would appoint the chairman. Once the Government have appointed the chairman, they will be home and dry, will they not?
As a result of such people being appointed to quangos, we are not finding that in response to Questions on the Order Paper, Ministers say that certain matters have been passed over to Mr. So-and-so and that he will reply to the Member concerned. So, in Hansard, we are getting not the voice of the Government, but references to some man with some job somewhere—perhaps in Manchester or Glasgow—who will reply to the Question. Ministers do not even bother to look at the Questions on the Order Paper now. They simply say, "Send that up to So-and-so", and could not care less what answer is given. That means that democracy is being lost to parliamentarians in both Houses.
I close by referring to what the Prime Minister said after Christmas. I listened to him with great interest when he started to project his own agenda for the future. He spoke about the new relationship that he would like to have with local government. One hopes that he will take notice of the real fear about centralisation in government policies and of the moral issues that arise when one gets rid of local democracy. That can lead to a breakdown of all services, all thought and all morals in the community. It is as well that the Prime Minister should be thinking seriously about his new relationship with local government.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Williams on raising the subject for today's debate, and, in particular, on the clear and concise manner in which he presented the case for local democracy. I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lady Fisher. We served together in the other place for many years. Like me, she started her public life in a local authority. I was a member of the Walthamstow Borough Council for over 20 years and its mayor. The town clerk of Westminster, Parker Morris—reference was made to him and his work on housing by the Minister—and I, as an organiser for the National Union of Public Employees, started the first fire watching scheme in the country without any help from central government.
In 1941, as a result of that work, the Home Secretary, Herbert Morrison, appointed me deputy regional commissioner for the South East region. I, and a commissioner, together with a deputy commissioner, were responsible for co-ordinating the work of 96 local authorities. The local authorities were responsible for running local government services, including the ARP. The South East region was bombed constantly during the 1939–1945 war. The
1598
towns of Dover and Folkestone, and surrounding districts, were shelled continuously from the French coast by the German long-range guns. The South East region also suffered from the flying bomb attacks, which destroyed many villages and killed hundreds of people. If local government could provide services during our darkest hours, why weaken its efforts today?
In 1945, when I became a Member of Parliament, the Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, appointed me as a junior Minister in the Dominions Office. When I could speak to him freely I said, "Why did you make me a Minister in the Dominions Office when I had so much knowledge of local govcernment". He said, "Arthur, first of all, it was time you got away from drains and dustbins. Secondly, I want a young Minister who will concentrate on helping to build a new Commonwealth". In due course I became Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs. To this day, I continue my friendship and association with most of the leaders of the Commonwealth.
Britain today needs strong local government more than ever. Democracy rests not just upon a national Parliament; it needs vigorous political debate locally. Instead of strengthening local government, the Government have imposed an unprecedented squeeze on council spending. That squeeze amounts to at least £500 million on the education and social services. The damage done to local government reflects the wider story of 13 years of Tory misgovernment.
I feel that only locally, democratically elected representatives know what are the needs of their areas and what amenities and services they require. Many local government services have been taken over by private enterprise. In many places, those private enterprise organisations have failed and the services have returned to local government. Many more private enterprise undertakings will fail local government. Local government will be given the task of rebuilding the ill-equipped services vacated by private enterprise.
In Cleveland, where I represented the parliamentary constituency of Middlesbrough for 21 years, the Government's fixed system for introducing council tax means that the county has lost out to the tune of about £5 million, which is equivalent to £31 for every council tax payer there. Cleveland received the lowest increase of any county in its SSA—just 1.4 per cent. compared to almost 7 per cent. for Tory-controlled East Sussex. Despite that, Cleveland has the highest ratio of police to population of any police authority in the country. It also provides more money for what is a more efficient nursery school service than that provided by most counties. Further progress in other services has been stopped or restricted, and as a result Cleveland's hopes of building up more efficient local government services have been destroyed by the Government.
5.18 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I wish to address the crisis for local democracy referred to by my noble friend Lord Williams in relation to the police service, particularly in the light of the Home

1599
Secretary's recent announcement that local authorities, through their police committees, will no longer be responsible for the police service in their areas. Police accountability has always been a thorny issue, with the Metropolitan Police accountable only to the Home Secretary and not at all to the elected representatives of the citizens of London.
Police forces elsewhere in the country have sometimes had difficulty in agreeing the exact nature of their accountability to police authorities which have been composed in the past of two-thirds local councillors and one-third magistrates. Some chief constables have had stormy relationships with chairmen and chairwomen of police authorities who, they felt, were taking too close an interest in day-to-day operational police duties. However, the essence of the democratic accountability of the police service is surely a dialogue that achieves a balance between the drive for greater efficiency and what is acceptable to the local populus.
An efficient police service, detecting all crimes and prosecuting all offenders, would not just impose enormous financial and bureaucratic burdens on the country. The methods needed to achieve that would be so draconian and unpopular that they would destroy the fabric of society.
During the past few years, relationships between the police and local authorities have been much more harmonious, and creative partnerships have been formed by the police, local authorities and local communities. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the London Borough of Lambeth. It is in another borough, Brent, which has had a troubled history for various reasons, that an especially fruitful partnership has been formed by the local police, probation officers and the local authority. They have effectively tackled problems of crime and drugs on their local estates in a way which can only be achieved through local knowledge, local partnership and local respect.
One of the grounds for the Home Secretary's desire to reorganise the police service—apart from his notorious passion for confrontation—is the oft-repeated assertion that the police service has become more inefficient because the clear-up rate for crime has fallen or remained static. Here he displays his usual shallow analysis of the problem. A glance at the clear-up rates for the Metropolitan Police —a quarter of the country's crime is committed in London, so this is a reasonable sample—during the past 10 years shows that for all recorded crime between 1981 and 1991 they remained at a steady 17 per cent. However, as recorded crime during those 10 years rose by almost 46 per cent. and clear-up rates also rose by 46 per cent., that is effectively an increase in police productivity of nearly 50 per cent. rather than a decline in efficiency. Similar figures can be calculated for the rest of the country.
The Home Secretary is of course reluctant to examine the real nature of crime and the reasons for its increase in a divided and impoverished society in which greed and selfishness have had official encouragement for the past 14 years. Instead he prefers to use the police service as a scapegoat for the
1600
rising crime figures and alleges that police management is in need of overhaul. He ignores the fact that during the past 10 years there has been an enormous cultural change in the police service. There has been a change internally, with devolved management systems, reductions in the number of higher ranks and headquarters and administrative staff and more sophisticated appraisal systems. There has been an annual reporting and appraisal system in the police service for the past 40 years. I find it astonishing that the teaching profession, for example, sees it as a strange innovation. During the past few years promotion and recruitment selection have been greatly improved, with objective, structural and practical tests as well as interviews.
Externally, the police service has worked extremely hard to develop closer ties with the local community, to be responsive to criticism of police methods and to develop partnerships with local authorities and other agencies in order to tackle serious problems on a local basis. Of course, problems remain. Some police officers have found it difficult to accept a more socially-aware style of policing and there will always be the few who are racist or corruptible. However, one welcome offshoot of the recession is that there are now few vacancies in the police service and in consequence the overall standard of recruits has become much higher.
None of that is acknowledged by the Home Secretary. Last month he announced that in future police authorities will consist of 16 members of whom three will be magistrates, eight will be local authority councillors and five will be government appointees. The most sinister aspect is that chairmen will be appointed by the Home Secretary and will have a casting vote. If the other rumours about amalgamations are true, the local councillors will inevitably be drawn from more than one local authority area and all local accountability and democratic representation will be lost. Moreover, as in current joint police authorities—for example, Avon and Somerset—there will be tension between those representing different local authority areas with different policing problems, as with the city of Bristol and the county of Somerset.
Who, one speculates, will the Home Secretary appoint as chairmen? Is he likely to appoint barristers such as himself whose only contact with the police is in relation to cases of serious crime which come before the higher courts and who have no concept of the broad range of ordinary police duties? Seventy per cent. of police work has nothing to do with crime. In fact, most crime is local, petty crime, often committed within housing estates where people prey on their neighbours. It is not the kind of crime which barristers encounter in the higher courts.
It seems extraordinary to me that this Government have, first, the arrogance to assume that their appointees will produce better policing than locally-elected representatives with an intimate knowledge of the communities they serve and, secondly, that they do not see the danger of having a police service centrally controlled by political appointees. If the Government were out of power I wonder how they would feel about chairmen of police authorities appointed by a Labour

1601
Home Secretary. Our schools and hospitals are now run by government appointees and there can be more than one view about the wisdom or effectiveness of that. But to extend the principle to the police service is surely to strike at the heart of democracy; not only of local democracy but of the country as a whole.
Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that if the Home Secretary is in need of a challenge and seeks to improve police efficiency he should look at court boundaries, which are often, especially in London, coterminous with neither police nor local authority boundaries. When I was at Chiswick I had to send police, prisoners and process papers to three separate courts and to respond to three separate systems and personalities of clerks and magistrates. A great saving and efficiency could be effected in police time in London at least if the boundaries were coterminous. Tackling the Lord Chancellor's Department should be a worthy challenge for Mr. Clarke.
I return to my main theme. If Mr. Clarke's plans for amalgamation go ahead and the police service in England and Wales is reduced from 43 separate forces to about 20 or so we shall be in great danger of the police service becoming a tool of government. We saw the bitter consequences of that during the miners' strike when the precious neutrality of the police service was lost and it was made to appear to be supporting then government objectives. The then Prime Minister's references to "our policemen" and to "a thin blue line defending the right to work" were not helpful, to say the least. They made the task of policing in mining communities much more difficult at the time and for many years afterwards.
It is not at all clear what the Home Secretary's objectives are in setting out to create fewer and larger police forces. It is notoriously in the larger forces, such as the Met and the West Midlands, that the worst examples of corrupt practice have occurred. Of course, 20 forces mean that a convenient number of 20 or so police authority chairmen, all of whom would be personal appointees of the Home Secretary, could be gathered around a table to be given instructions by the Home Secretary. That secretive and centralised system of control of the police service would be wholly disruptive of local democracy and could jeopardise democracy at the national level as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke of despotisms in Europe before the last war. In some ways control of the police is the first step along the road to tyranny. The Home Secretary appears to be setting out to achieve nationalisation of the police service by stealth and by politicisation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, spoke of elected dictatorship. I greatly fear that that is now being replaced by dictatorship by appointment.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, Mr. Anthony Eden, who later became the Earl of Avon, once wrote an interesting book, which is worth re-reading in the light of my noble friend's Question. It pointed out that we in Britain had never achieved a democracy; all that we had succeeded in doing was broadening the basis of
1602
the oligarchy. The point from which I wish to begin is that it is clear from our debate that we are talking in oligarchic terms about a narrowed base to the pyramid of local government under which most of the Members of this House received their education and their opportunity to become whatever they are today.
During the 18 years in which I have been a Member of your Lordships' House this debate is the most curious in which I have ever taken part. With the exception of the noble lad —I mean noble Lord—on the Front Bench many noble Lords taking part were at some time members of the party in opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Prentice, learnt many of his skills, arts and abilities in the ranks which he now faces from the other side of the Chamber. Therefore, we are obtaining an Opposition view of democracy in Britain in 1993. That is being given almost without response from the Government side, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in her characteristic speech. We are looking at the democracy that we shall hand on to our children and we are doing so on the basis of no presentation of the Government's case, except the prepared argument elegantly and well put by the Minister. I make that point sympathetically, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
When in 1944 the Education Act was being hailed as a great move forward in the creation of new opportunities within democracy in Britain, central government was probably stronger than any there had ever been. There was a settled pattern of local government which had become used to central government's systems and had within it people educated in the service, in the university of life and in the university of local government. Therefore, when the changes came to be made, a strong, newly elected government with a huge majority having access to orders in council, which would never have been provided to them in a peace-time situation, were able to change the nature of the education service and the truly advanced democracy of this country in a way that no other government have been able to do since.
The changes that came about in education at that time were implemented by a local government system that was understood, reasonably well funded and for which new funds were made available. The situation is vastly different today. One of the problems which the Government have made for themselves, or have historically inherited, is that they have caused changes to be made in almost every aspect of the community. While those changes are being carried through, they are proposing a mighty shake-up of the basis of local government. Therefore, if the Government are successful in getting their policies through the House, and are successful in putting them to the country, they would be trying to implement them in a broken-up system of local government in a series of changes which are far from complete and which will take three, six or even nine years to settle down.
The challenge to Ministers in office is immense. I do not believe that they have begun to realise what those challenges are. I do not say that in a party political sense. I say it as one who, 60 years ago, saw his own father enter local government. My father took his place as an independent Liberal in the local

1603
government of Pembrokeshire. Eventually he became chairman of the education authority. Twenty years later at 22 years of age I went into local government believing—and it is generally still believed today—that someone who has done fairly well out of the community and who has received a reasonable education should put something back into that community. It was a pleasure and a privilege to be elected to local government as a youngster and to be playing a part, as I thought, in implementing ideas and ideals that were worth implementing.
I have never said that those sitting opposite would have any lesser view than I have myself of what society is about or what their place in it should be. However, I believe that we have a tendency to rewrite history every time that we rise up in our places. One of the great aspects of local government of the past 50 years, over the period I have known it, has been that it has attracted to its ranks men of all parties and conditions who have given their time and energy to implement policies which they believe are for the general good.
In the clash of opinion there has been a refinement of policy. There has always been the knowledge that once every five years the whole system could be shaken up. One of the great things of our competitive democracy is that every now and again governments are "democked". That is George Brown's phrase. He was asked what had happened when he lost his seat. He said, "What happened? Democracy "democked". It is the very essence of our democracy that from time to time governments who might well have been good are thrown out by a populace which is fed up with them.
This Government continue to refuse to accept amendments to their policy on the basis that they know best. We have had examples of that. I wish to cite one or two examples that I take from my huge mail bag. I received one letter which states:
"We are concerned that we do not sufficiently ensure the continuation of opportunities for young people in maintained schools to take part in youth orchestras, bands and choirs whose quality and internationally acknowledged successes are an educational achievement of which the UK is justly proud".
The writer of that letter believes that the proposals that are being made might accidentally rather than purposely cull and eventually kill off the opportunities for musical education that have long been built into our education system and have been a matter of great pride for the country.
That does not only lie within the Education Bill, which can be argued stage by stage. It lies within the Motion which my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel has laid before us. One point which concerns the Association of County Councils is that the new local government system will not be in place in time to safeguard those very matters which the Government believe they are safeguarding. There will be local unitary authorities—I come from Pembrokeshire and we never believed that we should have been amalgamated with Dyfed but we understood the need of Cardigan and Carmarthen to join with a proud and upright county like ours—but those unitary authorities will of necessity take between five and 10 years to
1604
learn again the skills and to develop the processes which will give them confidence within the new situation.
Your Lordships know my preoccupation with special educational needs. I have received six, seven or eight letters on that subject including one from the Government on the implementation of proposals for the integration of children with special needs into the general system. This side of the House agrees with the other side that there should be an integrated schools service and that all children should be integrated except those who will never be able to be fully integrated because of their particularly serious special needs. We are agreed on that. But what will happen is that those children will be transferred now in anticipation of local government reorganisation. Psychologists and the educational support services are no longer referring to the special schools but are putting children directly into the integrated system because they know that that is what will happen. Therefore, by accident again, pressures are imposed on a well-tried and trusted system which has worked in advance of making certain that the new system will be able to accommodate properly those people whom it is moving.
I am giving a series of helpful warnings to the House and to the Front Bench opposite. The WJEC—the Welsh Joint Education Committee—has briefed Members of this House on its anxieties. It is not necessarily opposed to the general wishes of the Education Bill but it is worried that matters will be left in mid-air, stranded between systems and unable to operate adequately.
The whole purpose of the Motion before the House is to discuss local government. Low morale can frequently be found in the local government service. That is not helped by the general state of the economy and factors occurring outside the control of the nation which affect it. However, it is essential for the Government and for the systems of government of this country to change the mood of the nation for good.
I should point out to the young noble Lords on the Front Bench that in 1945—when the Clement Attlee Government gained power, when tremendous changes for the common good were put in hand—it seemed almost perverse that a Minister who has already been mentioned in this debate, Herbert Morrison, should have instituted the Festival of Britain. That was at a time when Britain was in great economic difficulties and all its systems had been strained by a world war. The Festival of Britain somehow changed the mood of the nation and focused the eyes of the country on new opportunities that were occurring. I only introduce that point at the end of my remarks.
I believe that it is absolutely essential that within the education system the children of our country should continue to receive the kind of opportunities that gave us the chances to do the things that we have done with our lives. I issue in general terms a warning against a country that fails to do that because it is too mesmerised with economic indices or too concerned—although perhaps it is not possible to be too

1605
concerned—about the economy. If it neglects the education of its children by accident, with the best of intentions, that is as bad as if it was done on purpose.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Prentice: My Lords, the House owes a debt of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for introducing a debate of great importance. I hope that he will not be too embarrassed if I say that I go along with part of what he said on the constitutional problems. It seems to me to be a pity that that argument was somewhat overwhelmed by the kind of routine partisan points that he made against the Government. However, the devastating arguments of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde disposed of all that, and if they are not going to be repeated from this side of the House by me or by anyone else, it is simply because it would be superfluous. My noble friend did that job. The day-to-day criticisms on such matters by the Opposition are falling very flat.
But, having said that, I should like to return to the constitutional point. I believe that that strand runs through the debate. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Parry, spoke about it to some great effect a moment ago. Of course, the trouble did not start in 1979. I shall not go back as far as G. D. H. Cole, but I shall go back to my own entry into Croydon Borough Council as a very young Labour councillor in 1949. I listened to my elders and betters on both sides of the council complaining about the extent to which the Labour Government was taking away powers and responsibilities from local authorities. In particular, the councillors in Croydon, and throughout the country, were very upset by the removal of their hospitals (which they had run very well and of which they were very proud) from their control into the machinery of the new National Health Service.
On that point, I think that the House may be interested in a certain quotation. I am indebted here to Peter Hennessey and his book Never Again which is a history of Britain from 1945 to 1951. He quotes from a Cabinet paper (now, of course, public property due to the passage of time) put before Cabinet by Herbert Morrison on 12th October 1945. Herbert Morrison was opposing Aneurin Bevan in relation to the future of local authority hospitals. The point he made has been relevant to many issues since, including those still facing the country today. The quote reads:
"It is possible to argue that almost every local government function, taken by itself, could be administered more efficiently in the technical sense under a national system, but if we wish local government to thrive—as a school of political and democratic education as well as a method of administration—we must consider the general effect on local government of each particular proposal. It would be disastrous if we allowed local government to languish by whittling away its most constructive and interesting functions".
Herbert Morrison lost that argument in Cabinet. In subsequent Cabinet meetings, both under Labour and Conservative Governments, that same argument has been lost several times. Perhaps, worse still, it has gone by default.
I shall cite just one or two obvious examples, though there are many others. In the 1970s the Labour
1606
Government (of which I was a member) introduced legislation to compel local education authorities to produce plans for reform along comprehensive lines. They did not leave it to discretion. They were not content with the circular for which I had earlier been responsible, but followed it up by compulsory legislation. A few years later a Conservative Government compelled local authorities to offer council houses for sale to tenants. They did not leave that to the discretion of each local authority; they said, "This must be done".
I move on now to other examples which bring us to the present time, including some aspects of the Education Bill currently before the House, the proposals of the Home Secretary for the reform of the police to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred, and many others. My point is that such things have happened under governments of both parties and that they have involved both large and small matters. I have to concede that very often there has been a good ad hoc argument for a particular proposal. Some of those policies have been matters of election manifesto commitments upon which a government was elected; for example, the Conservative Government in 1979 was committed to the right-to-buy legislation. They had a reasonable argument to say—and I speak as someone who voted for it in the Division Lobby—that they could not tolerate the opposition of local Labour-controlled councils preventing that promise from being fulfilled.
I admit that we are in a very complex field here, just as Herbert Morrison versus Aneurin Bevan was a complex argument in which there were genuine points to be put on both sides. The trend of the past half century or so has been to reduce the power of local government vis-à-vis national government. The trend was not to reduce its work; indeed, the work of local government has perhaps increased as has its expenditure. But the scope for making local decisions of real importance to the locality has, on the whole, diminished. Somehow or other that tread ought to be reversed.
Perhaps I may put a few general propositions to the House upon which I shall not be able to expand because of the time limit. First, it seems to me that democracy requires some degree of pluralism. It is not sufficient for people simply to have one vote for one national assembly every five years or so. Secondly, in a country which is not federal but which has a unitary constitution, the main instrument for that pluralism must be local government. In a country which is not a federal country it is therefore all the more important that it has strong local government.
Thirdly, the complex social problems that we face today are better tackled if there are a variety of authorities, each with their own responsibilities, and tackling them in varying ways so that when dealing with housing or social service problems, and so on, local authorities can learn from their own and one another's successes or failures. That comparative exercise can produce better answers than simply a code of practice issued from Whitehall.
Fourthly, it seems to me that good candidates will only come forward for election and good officials will

1607
only stay in post if they have a real job to do. If they become simply more and more the local instruments of national administration, the job will not be worthwhile; and, as regards councillors, it will not be worth all the sacrifice of time and effort involved.
Fifthly, our Government have successfully argued the case for subsidiarity in the relationship between the nation states and the European Community. That principle surely applies to today's discussion, and in my view is one that has not been sufficiently applied by this Government—nor, I repeat, by previous governments.
My final point is that there is inevitably therefore a morale problem among Conservative councillors. Here again I should like to add a personal note. I must keep showing that if I am a rebel against my own side I was also a rebel against the Labour Government when I was a Labour Member of Parliament. When I was a Labour Minister, I remember Labour councillors saying exactly the same thing to me that I now hear from Conservative councillors. They are saying, "Look, we have the experience. We have been at the sharp end of these problems for many years. Why do they not listen to us a little more? Why are we sidelined in policy making"? That applies particularly to the Education Bill that is in front of the House at this moment. I personally support the general purpose of that Bill. I believe it will help to raise standards, and that is vital. However, I believe those same objectives could have been pursued while placing a greater emphasis on the role of the local education authorities.
Throughout the country there are experienced Conservative chairmen of local education authorities in the shires and in the better London boroughs. The local examination results tables have shown that those authorities have achieved results that are well above the average. I am thinking of some authorities in particular but I shall not mention names. Those experienced people could have been consulted on the Education Bill. They should have been included in discussions at the formative stage of the legislation because of the input they could contribute.
In the recent past we have carried through reforms of local government finance. They were controversial reforms; but I shall not go into that. We are proceeding towards changes in local government structure. However, I believe something more is needed. We need some kind of initiative on the part of central government to improve their relationships with local government and to indicate the way in which those relationships can develop in the future. The Prime Minister's recent speech in which he spoke of a renaissance pointed in the right direction.
We should be encouraged by the fact that Mr. Major is the first Prime Minister for over 40 years who has had personal experience as a councillor. I am sure he will want to build on that speech. I believe that process could take the form of some kind of government statement—possibly a Green Paper or something of that kind although I do not wish to be dogmatic about that—which sets out the philosophy of that relationship and which emphasises the need to restore the stature of local government in Britain. The
1608
measure should be written in a tone of partnership. It should be followed up by a dialogue between national and local government on how to put flesh on to those bones and how to bring the proposals forward in practice.
That would constitute partly a process of formal consultation through the usual channels; but the consultation should be carried on informally too within each political party. The proposals could be discussed in many forums throughout the country. Our democracy will be richer if we can restore the status and the real power of local government and reverse the trends of the past half century. I plead with my noble friends on the Front Bench to work out these matters with their colleagues and to take new initiatives in that direction.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, back home in Wales professors, poets, preachers and peasants tell us that there is no English equivalent of the Welsh word cynefin. It derives ultimately from the same root as the Latin domus, meaning a home in the sense of a dwelling place or a family seat, but it goes much wider. It refers to the totality of the place where one belongs, where one feels one's roots are, and it carries geographical, cultural, linguistic and familial connotations. This partly explains why local authorities and local democracy have for so long been deeply rooted in Welsh political life. It helps to explain, for example, why the Government's drive for grant-maintained schools has simply not taken off in Wales. Local authorities have been the providers and the nurturers of education, culture and the arts for a long time. It is about local authorities and the arts that I wish to speak. Indeed, local authorities have recently fulfilled the role of providers across the entire United Kingdom. However, the cultural health of the nation is now most gravely threatened by the Government's manifest intention to weaken local democracy and to limit the activities of local authorities at every opportunity. Yet local authorities are still the major supporters of arts activity throughout the country. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy leisure and recreation estimates for 1992–93 indicate that local authority expenditure on the arts and museums in England and Wales amounted to £325.7 million compared with an Arts Council budget of £198.8 million, of which more than £62.5 million went to the five "national" companies—ROH, ENO, RSC, RNT and the South Bank.
The pre-eminence of local authorities in arts support has not happened by chance. In local elections the public have voted for parties and policies which brought it about. It is clearly what the people want and what they are prepared to pay for. To be fair central Government have acceded to that demand since the Local Government Act of 1948, and especially in the 1972 Local Government Act, which lifted the restriction on the sum local authorities were permitted to raise from the rates to support arts and entertainments. That enlightened move was made

1609
under a Conservative government who deserve great credit for it, and it enabled local authorities to become the leading force in arts development.
Sadly, the intention of those enabling measures has been reversed by the assault on local government powers since 1979. Local authority arts funding remains discretionary. With the introduction of universal capping and continuing central Government restriction on overall expenditure, all areas of discretionary spending are prime targets for so-called savings.
It is not just the well-being of arts organisations which is put in jeopardy by this state of affairs but also the entire principle of local democracy. Many local councils stood for re-election on a platform in which support for the arts was by no means a minor pledge. They are now forced to renege on their promises as they have to comply with central government spending decisions through the Department of Environment. The threat to arts development, particularly at grass roots level, comes from a number of directions: first, from the reduction or the withdrawal of grant aid to independent arts organisations and projects—not merely from leisure services but also from education and social services budget headings. A silent battle is going on all around the country as councils wrestle with their appalling budget problems for 1993–94 and arts organisations continue to negotiate for the best level of support they can hope to secure. In many cases the combatants are all on the same side. Many of the most supportive authorities of recent years are forced by capping restrictions to consider cuts which they have absolutely no wish to impose.
Secondly, the threat to arts development comes from the reduction or the withdrawal of arts education support and services in response to the demands of the Education Reform Act, local management of schools and now the Education Bill. I shall mention one small instance of that. LEAs traditionally supply schools with library services, peripatetic music teaching and local advisory services on drama, arts and music. The staff inform, co-ordinate and liaise with schools and artists. Under the Education Bill that provision looks unlikely to survive at all.
Thirdly, the threat to arts development comes from the continuing decline in the availability of such things as discretionary awards to drama and dance students seeking training at the accredited schools offering vocational courses. More than one-third, 35 per cent., of all drama students and one-third of all dance students entering schools in 1992–93 had no grant towards their fees; 14 per cent. of local authorities are making no discretionary awards to drama students, and not because they do not wish to do so. All these measures endanger local authority provision for the arts and imperil the nation's culture.
I wish to illustrate the national danger from the particular position of the local authority in the city of Sheffield. I declare my interest as an unpaid director of its famous Crucible Theatre.
In 1992–93 Sheffield's expenditure per head on arts and museums was one of the highest in England. At
1610
approximately £10 per head Sheffield's spending on cultural facilities covered art galleries, museums, theatres, a concert hall and a wide range of directly provided activities, in addition to capital expenditure incurred in supporting major arts buildings. There are two great theatres side by side in the middle of Sheffield, neither of them in the red, but in the black.
Support from the private sector has been growing throughout the past 15 years for the arts in Sheffield. However, in 1993–94, with an SSA which provided approximately £40 million less than the city council believed it needed to continue supporting the current level of activities some hard choices had to be made.
That is the nub of the matter. Is it reasonable to compel local authorities to choose between, for instance, social services, education and cultural provision when any civilised society requires all three?
In Sheffield's case the city council decided that it had no option but to reduce expenditure on arts and museums. That cut strikes at the heart of the city's cultural activities. Opening hours of museums will be reduced; support for the famous Crucible and Lyceum Theatres will diminish, with all the dangers of a more conventional and safer programme of plays; art galleries will cease to purchase works of art; and the physical fabric of many buildings will remain unrepaired.
While it is right and correct in any democracy for local priorities to be determined, it cannot be right for the essential cultural fabric of a major industrial city in this country to be reduced in that way despite everything that its local authority can do.
I wish that I could feel confidence in the Government's oft-repeated assertions that they want a creative partnership with local authorities. There is remarkably little evidence of it. If we consider the nation's museums and galleries the truth is all too clear. In 1991 the Museums and Galleries Commission, the Government's principal adviser, published a report—Local Authorities and Museums—from a working party chaired by Professor John Last, who is not a member of the Labour Party by any means. May I ask the Government how many of the Last Report's recommendations have been accepted and implemented since 1991? One of those recommendations was that every local authority should have a policy for museums. The MGC sought government help to produce a simple circular to encourage implementation. There was no such help. The MGC had to distribute its own pamphlet—Building on Success—to take forward the proposals of the Last Report. The Government did not want to know.
The Last Report included a most careful and well-informed discussion of the question of whether or not provision of a museum service should be made mandatory on local authorities. That question has been with us a long time. The committee came down against the idea. Yet in the 1993 White Paper, Local Government in Wales, in section 4.19 on museums and galleries, we read:
"Authorities will be required to produce plans for the provision of these and other services and the Secretary of State proposes that he should, for the first year of the new

1611
authorities, have reserve powers which he would use if the local authorities' proposals would not safeguard these important services".
Similarly, in Scotland, since the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982 a duty has been imposed on districts and islands to ensure "adequate cultural provision". The Scottish Museums Council has found that phrase very useful in discussions with Scottish local authorities.
But what do the Government intend nationwide? What is good for Wales and Scotland is surely sufficient for England. When are the Government going to make clear their policy, if any, for some 800 local authority museums and galleries? At present there is none.
Strong local authorities are essential to democratic government, as every speech today has emphasised. In The Times last Monday Professor Norman Lewis of Sheffield University wrote about the new best-selling book Reinventing Government by Osborne and Gaebler. That is a book which should be on all our bookshelves. I recommend that the Minister goes out tomorrow and purchases a copy, at his own expense. In his essay Professor Lewis said:
"To reinvent government is to decentralise government. A revitalised and more autonomous local government, which will need greater financial autonomy, is central to the delivery of improvements in choice and community self-expression".
I could not have put it better myself.
6.5 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise to offer strong support to my noble friend Lord Williams and the many eloquent speakers who have followed him. Partly but not entirely for reasons of prudence I shall single out the two sitting next to me, my noble friend who has just spoken and my noble friend Lord Parry.
If I understood my noble friend Lord Williams aright, he entertains a view, which I share, that this Government—I do not say all Conservative Governments but certainly the Conservative Government of today and those which we have had in recent years—dislike local government. If anyone doubts that, they might read the speech made by Mr. Howard, the Secretary of State for the Environment, on 3rd February when introducing the financial settlement. It includes a long string of taunts at the Labour Party. That is very unlike this House. I do not know what goes on in the other place: I once tried to get in and did not make it, and therefore cannot speak about the House of Commons. However, undoubtedly if Mr. Howard had made that speech in this House someone would have moved that he be no longer heard; he was so insulting to such a large number of Members.
Mr. Howard referred to the Member for Sheffield and asked whether he recalled that he was chairman of the council when Sheffield lost £10 million on the World Student Games. I suppose that everyone was too polite, even there, to rise and ask how many billions of pounds the Government had lost as a result of devaluation. However, I do not know whether that or anything would have stopped Mr. Howard. His dislike was very evident.
1612
I do not know whether that dislike is shared by the noble Lord opposite, who is such an acceptable speaker. He will forgive me if I recall an experience of mine last Friday, which is not included in any points of which I have given him notice but to which he will be able to reply. Owing to the rail strike I had to travel by coach. I do not know whether other noble Lords have travelled by coach instead of by train or by car, but I do not recommend the experience. We were supposed to reach my destination, which was between Tonbridge and Hastings, in an hour and three-quarters but it took three-and-a-half hours. After we had been travelling for some time and were not making progress the driver turned round and with a beatific smile—almost as beatific as the smile of the noble Lord opposite—said that he appeared to have missed the way. I asked him if he had any idea where we were and he said that he could not be too sure but he suspected that we were somewhere on the A20. Anyone who knows the road to Hastings will know that the A20 does not get one to Hastings.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I finish this sentence? Personally I am in favour of interruptions in these time-limited debates and I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, I simply wished to ask the noble Earl if he could make sure that we hear what he says because some of us on this side of the House cannot hear everything that he says. Perhaps he could speak a little more slowly and a little higher. That would be of great advantage to us all.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is very difficult to know how to cope with that request, even coming as it does from a co-religionist. I do not think that I can do anything. We have the microphones. Perhaps the noble Lord should sit on the Front Bench. Meanwhile, time is passing.
The gist of the story was that the driver had completely lost his way but kept on smiling. As I understand it, that is the position of the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Prentice, made a thought-provoking speech. I do not know whether to be sad or glad that he has left us. I miss him, but at the same time he could do more damage to the Government from where he sat; he could be a real thorn in their flesh.
The distribution of functions between local government and central government is an eternal issue. Let us take an example of a situation in which it is not right to do what the Government propose—although it could be reversed—in transferring a responsibility to local government. The EFFRA Trust has done unique work for mentally disordered ex-prisoners. It was funded by central authorities; but most of the money is now supposed to come from local authorities. However, those involved are inmates from all over England. How will they raise the money from local authorities throughout England? It is unlikely. I can only hope for the best. I give that example because I do not wish to give the impression

1613
that it is always right to transfer responsibility to the local authority. But where movement has occurred, I usually welcome it if the resources go with it.
However, let us take the treatment of those moved from mental homes. Such homes have been steadily closed over the past years. The main responsibility for those people falls on local authorities under the so-called community care arrangements. But what is the situation? In the area in which I live in Sussex there were 1,400 patients at Hellingly Hospital. The hospital has almost closed. Where are those 1,400 patients now? According to information, 80 per cent. are in their homes. Who is looking after them? The answer is, virtually no one. Those great responsibilities are cast on local authorities but the resources are not made available.
I refer to a statement issued by a number of organisations involved in the issue—Age Concern, MENCAP, Mind, the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and others. Those organisations issued a statement in which they call on the Government to match the principles of community care now enshrined in law with actions that will guarantee effective care. That is the actual situation with regard to community care. The Government have raised great expectations but there is no sign whatever of their being honoured under present arrangements.
I wrote a book which was published last April called Prisoner or Patient. It was about mentally disordered offenders. It was praised by a high authority; namely, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. In the book I stated that community care is a farce. Community care will remain a farce unless something very different is done by the Government.
I can give many other examples. I read an article in The Times recently about the youth service. Two thirds of local authorities are cutting their youth services. That has led to strong protests from at least one chief of police. That is at a time when it is generally considered that the youth services are one of the few bulwarks against the alleged youth crime rate. Many other examples have been given in the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, stated at the beginning of the debate, the truth is that the Government do not like local authorities. When they transfer functions, they transfer responsibility without resources.
What is the present situation? The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, had a favourite expression in this House—a dog's breakfast. The present situation with regard to community care is a dog's breakfast. I hope that the Government will bear those anxieties in mind. They come not only from me—they may or may not take me seriously—but from all the organisations involved.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, when the noble Lord introduced the Government's case, he stated that he was about to be disappointed by all noble Lords on this side of the Chamber but thought that he would receive some comfort from his one noble friend on that side. I do not believe that he received much
1614
comfort from his noble friend. The debate seems to have been completely one sided. However, I was extremely glad that we were treated to a quotation from G. D. H. Cole; it implied that the Minister had done some reading on the post-war situation. I have no doubt that he read G.D.H. Cole's Great Britain in the Post-War World although some of his statements do not seem to indicate that. However, I wish to recommend some further reading. Perhaps the Minister will take time to consider the proposals of Beveridge. His views may well change on the health service. Perhaps he will peruse Buchanan's Traffic in Towns which dealt with the major problems of congestion in the cities of this country. The noble Lord, Lord Prentice, knows all about that.
Perhaps when the noble Lord utters the statement that there has been no centralisation, he will consider London, where the Government abolished the only directly-elected authority which could possibly have carried out the plans envisaged in Buchanan's Traffic in Towns. It was not because that particular authority was not doing a good job. It had already started on a very intensive programme of getting people back onto buses and the Underground. Since then everyone knows what has happened. London is in a wonderful state! Even the Evening Standard continually talks about the necessity to have a London authority although it does not go so far as we go and say that it should be a directly-elected local authority.
I do not wish to deal with any particular point but seek to indicate why we should restore local democracy to what it was, in the interests of the nation. I refer to the period during the war when local democracy was called on to mount all the emergency services. The whole country was dependent upon the work of local authorities for preserving the safety of the nation. The Minister stated recently that I was wrong when I said that local government has continuously lost power; he said that it had not. Let us consider the position in 1945. We had our hospitals and our electricity, gas and water undertakings. All of those were constructed because we had a consensus in Liverpool. I do not claim credit for the Labour Party with regard to that situation. Those organisations were established at great odds by a Conservative/Liberal alliance. That alliance used to run Liverpool, and I pay tribute to it. It is not the time to make party points.
I was extremely glad to hear the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Prentice. It went a long way towards expressing an ideal system. The organisations to which I referred were not achieved without cost. For instance, we had to ensure that when the water undertaking was built in Wales, we had the agreement of the people of Wales. We were conscious of that. The whole of the working class in Liverpool were conscious of it; and so was the ruling party. By and large, Liverpool was half built by Welsh people. They were coming off the land and because of their experience in building they built the whole of South Liverpool. Under its own steam, Liverpool City Council handled an influx of Irishmen from Ireland after the famine. I do not believe that any other single institution ever handled such a problem.

1615
It would not be a bad idea to cast our mind back to those problems. Through a consensus of the Tory and Labour parties in Liverpool, we finally laid plans for the redevelopment of Liverpool after the loss of the docks. We began demolishing some 3-storey Victorian houses. Some of the younger elements on the job were amazed to find when they demolished the top of the house that the basements were full of sand. Why was it there? Because the influx of Irish had led to such bad conditions that the Irish people had literally to be taken out and the basements loaded with sand to prevent them flooding back. That was a major problem for Liverpool then.
It is amazing to me, with my experience in Liverpool, that because of the division in the field of religion we did not have repeated there the same kind of situation as exists in Northern Ireland. It is dangerously near. No one else claims credit for the peace except the local authority in Liverpool. It carefully established neutrality between the two sides and they managed to exist in a friendly and tolerant fashion. Let that be for ever to the credit of Liverpool and the local democracy that functioned by consensus.
When the economy started growing we found that other things had to be done. The issue then was whether local government should remain democratic and have powers or whether central government should take over some of the powers. The noble Lord, Lord Prentice, is right, the Labour Government were at fault on some matters. The first inroad of any serious proportion was the Bill applying to the police. The Government had already tried in a gentle fashion to remove police powers from the hands of the directly elected authority, the watch committees. They were rubbed out. Now all these years later, the Government accept the view that perhaps their way of administering the police in London is not the best way to do it and the trend is going the other way. I never tire of saying that if we talk about the way that police forces operate, fundamentally where they operated under the control of a watch committee we rarely heard of corruption. But, my goodness! As soon as we centralised power in London, the most corrupt police force in this country was the London Metropolitan Police Force. That is perhaps a reflection of what happens when one takes away the democracy which local authorities should have.
When we set up the water industry, we were praised in Wales, they did not accuse us of robbing them of the Welsh water. There was co-operation between the two, and if anyone goes to the Lake Vyrnwy estate from which Liverpool and Merseyside draw their water, he will see a well-managed estate, in spite of all that has been done since Liverpool left it. The same applies in the scrubland near Capel Celyn where we flooded a village; but the locals were pleased. We did it because we could sense and we knew that Liverpool and Merseyside were part of North Wales. It was necessary that Liverpool should contribute to North Wales, and we did so.
The electricity industry which we set up was the forerunner of Manweb. Without the electricity industry, we would never have had electricity in the Welsh hills and the farmers would have been deprived
1616
of power. Of course, it was sensible because the produce from North Wales was sold in Liverpool. When Liverpool people exercised their freedom, they went to North Wales, it was one area and it is a great tragedy that the boundary runs down the middle of the Dee. I have made many a plea that we should abolish the boundary and plan a local authority on the basis of the economic needs of the region. We should not allow borders to exist which were established many years ago because two barons fought over a field and then finally decided that the boundary would be there. It is cockeyed.
It is cockeyed when electricity is divorced from gas and electricity and gas are divorced from water. They are all necessary parts of our lives and we should have a local authority able to control them all. I shall give an example. People will know that Merseyside has a narrow estuary and wide basin with many sandbanks. There were complaints from people who used to go out in a boat and found sewage deposited upon the banks. They made their voices heard and wanted it cleaned up. I was the leader of the council and had a difficult task determining priorities. At that time we were responsible for the social services, so I called in the medical officer of health and asked: "What is your attitude to the terrible pollution of the River Mersey?" He said: "It is bad, Sir". I said: "Yes, I go down there myself and I can see that it is bad. Has anyone lost their life from it?" He said, "No". I asked how we stood in the hypothermia stakes, and that year 15 people had died of it. So I put the question to him: "Where should we put our limited amount of money?" That is the kind of priority that only a local government can decide. There is no need for me to tell the House where the priority was and where the money went. The rest had to wait. Those are the kinds of priorities that impinge upon the community. They cannot be dodged and they impinge upon the health of people within the local authority. I defy any civil servant in London to decide that kind of issue. They just cannot do it, it is an impossibility.
Now we shall lose education, to all intents and purposes, let us not be kidded about that. The Minister mentioned houses and the bonfire of controls. All I ask is for people to open their eyes and see what is happening in the land. I travel a lot. I like travelling in the country; I do not go abroad. There is no better place than North Wales. Yet, I see all around houses being deposited on little bits of land there. It is now completely understood in the building and farming industries that if someone has a bit of land and wants to put a house on it, if the local authority says: "No, that's not proper planning", it is all right; he can go to the Minister.
Of course, there has been a bonfire of controls. When we talk about housing, look at the municipal housing that was built between 1945 and 1950; then look at the municipal housing that was built 10 years afterwards.
Lord Parry: Rabbit hutches!
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I am not talking about rabbit hutches at the moment; I shall come to them later. The difference is that some houses were

1617
planned and built under Nye Bevan; and the others were built under Macmillan. Nye Bevan insisted that if working-class homes were built, the men or lads in the household would go in the garden. They were entitled therefore to an outside toilet. Then they would not have to go in the house and go upstairs to the toilet. So the houses all had two toilets. They all had something that was sneered at previously—Parker Morris standards—because the planners at that time insisted that working-class houses should have the best that could be afforded. Go to any estate, go to one which I know very well and the one which I represented for many years as a councillor: Speke, in Liverpool. Go down Damwood Road: on one side there are the Macmillan homes; on the other, Nye Bevan's. One can see which are the best.
The noble Lord mentioned rabbit hutches. Let us get bang up to date: a bonfire of controls with new towns and local authorities which were all persuaded to build what were called new starter homes. For those noble Lords who do not know what they are, they are one-block buildings which, normally, two houses would occupy. I am watching the time. I have a little time left and I shall finish on this point.
What occupies the site now? Four houses. When I went to see the first one, which was built under the magnanimous influence of Margaret Thatcher, I said to the man who showed us round (who was, of course a member of the Party): "What happens if somebody comes from abroad who has collected a lot of things? Where does he put them?" No account was ever taken of storage. I would bet that if the Government made inquiries as to how many starter homes are still in the possession of and rented by, or bought by, the original owners, they will find a tremendously high figure. The truth is that once decisions come under central government, local choice is decimated. This Government hate local government. It is about time things shifted. If we do not remove that detestation of local government and come round to accepting the idea that we need local government and local participation, the country is finished.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, it is good that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has raised the question of what is happening to local government. As we have heard, the subject arouses considerable passion. I find it useful to look at my local area, Orkney. Orkney is a very small authority. It is one authority. The community is reasonably homogeneous. One can see to some extent, as in a laboratory, the effect of local legislation on a fairly normal set of people.
The first point to be made about local government is that it has become positively enormous. It grows and grows. Not only does its staff increase to carry out what used to be its traditional functions, but it has spread into all sorts of new occupations. We have for instance an economist. Goodness knows, one would think that there is enough economic advice available without employing a full-time local economist. We have an archivist. We have a legal department, which I believe contains five fully qualified lawyers. When I
1618
first went to Orkney and Shetland, five fully qualified lawyers did all the legal business, private and public. There were only five qualified lawyers in the whole of the two islands. Now there are five in the local authority alone. On top of that, the authority constantly employs consultants. So there is no question—as indeed the Minister pointed out—of local government withering away. It is very expensive. It occupies tremendous new buildings and it employs a great many staff. Orkney has all that for the benefit of a total population of 20,000.
What is the result? There has not been a great improvement in efficiency. On the contrary, over the scandal of the local children and over the short sea route into which £30 million has been sunk in the Pentland Firth our record for efficiency has certainly not improved. Furthermore, it has the effect of deterring people from going into local government. Nobody who is reasonably busy and who has some sort of outside life to lead will spend hours and hours reading agendas, documents, minutes and the reports of consultants and attending innumerable committees. There are still many public-spirited people who do. But it becomes progressively more difficult to attract anyone of reasonable youth who is reasonably fully employed into local government. When a recent vacancy arose, it was quite difficult to attract any candidates. As a result local government is falling into the hands of those who are bureaucratically-minded, of those who are retired, and of a few people who find the allowances quite useful.
The changes are having a bad effect on the community, which has given up doing all sorts of things. For instance, many of the problems concerning the children in Orkney would have been solved in the old days by the pressure of the community. But now such matters are the business of social workers and others. So there are certain positively damaging effects.
Are we to accept that? There are two things to be done. One, which I shall recommend, is vastly to reduce the amount of work—not the responsibility, but the amount of work—which is now laid upon local councils and local councillors. If we find that impossible, then we must face the fact that being a local councillor is now a full-time job. That is what happens in Parliament and it may well happen in local government. If so, one has to pay councillors a full wage. I believe that that is contrary to the whole tradition of local government, and I am rather surprised that it is the direction in which a Conservative Government are driving us. But it is certainly the logical conclusion.
The other possibility is entirely to change the constitutional set-up in local government. It differs from parliamentary government. In parliamentary government one has an Executive. One has a clearly-defined Opposition and people supporting the Executive. One has party conflict. One has all sorts of other signs of the British constitution. The tradition in local government was that local councillors took decisions and to some extent implemented them. They had a small bureaucracy, but they were not divided into political parties. They were not divided between

1619
what one might call Parliament—which exists principally to protest and to criticise the Government—and the Government. Perhaps we have to give up that tradition. In a great many local authorities it has been given up. It does not seem to me, however, that the machinery has been brought into line with what we now expect local councillors to do. That is the first task.
Another development is that of quangos. They are not elected but they have enormous power. To the ordinary person the power of the quango is in many respects as great or greater than that of government. If one is a farmer, one is very much at the mercy of quangos. Any of us may find that our house is raided at the behest of a quango. There is no election to quangos. I do not know whether noble Lords read an article in the Sunday Telegraph by Matt Ridley the week before last: they certainly ought to. All that it said is true, and it is very alarming.
Part of the trouble arises from the general development of the country. But part lies squarely on the shoulders of the Government. Year after year the Government produce a rag-bag of stuff which they call a local government Act. That lays more responsibility firmly on the local authorities, whether they like it or not. That is partly the reason why local councillors become so bored. They are not interested in carrying out over the year the thoughts of the Government or the Civil Service. They are interested in innovating and in improving their communities, not in being dogsbodies for Whitehall. I beg the Government to give that up; to deny themselves the pleasure of producing a local government Bill every year; and to deny their civil servants the pleasure of laying on local authorities more and more responsibilities covering an enormous rag-bag of occupations which many of them do not consider are of prime importance. To do that is not to apply subsidiarity. Surely subsidiarity does not mean that everyone else is turned into a servant. Surely it means that one encourages initiative at lower levels, not simply that one operates through them. But that is what is happening in this country.
As already mentioned, some American academics have published a very popular book which has apparently received great acclamation, not least in this House. I must say that when I read it it seemed to be a glimpse of the obvious. I thought that everybody—at least, all Liberals—had known for years and years that we should not ask the Government to do things that we can do ourselves; that we should not force bureaucrats to do things which, by getting together and forming local associations, we can do ourselves. That realisation apparently has been rediscovered in America and is thought to be the great thought of the new presidential era. I am very glad to hear it. I thought that in this country it was well known about 1850 if not before. However, by all means let us press on with it.
However, if we are to do that, we must make a better distinction between the sort of public goods which it is thought that people can provide for themselves and those which it is essential that the Government or local authorities provide. So far as possible we should allow people to provide them for
1620
themselves, or if that is impossible we should encourage co-operation between them. Some time ago I went to Bologna, which is run by the communists. I visited an old folks' home where the old people were doing what business they could. The drink was passed around by the old folks; the chianti and martini were flowing. The old folks were bounding about dispensing it. In this country when one goes into an old folks' home one finds them all tucked up in blankets and waited on with coffee. Not a bit of that in communist Bologna. I suggest that we ought to get a few communists from Bologna over into this country and introduce that sort of thing here.
The same happens in other areas of the community. The Government seem to think that there are only two alternatives. One is that we have the present bureaucratic control; the other is that we privatise. It is the same in education or in the case of prisons, as in everything else. Some of these services are totally unfit for privatisation. Their whole raison d'être is quite contrary to the commercial ethic of today.
One has to get people to co-operate, to take part and to participate in running services. That is what they used to do and are willing to do so long as it is reasonably simple and their responsibilities can be discharged in a reasonable time. One cannot expect to spend all day every day in administrative and bureaucratic work.
The Government should not only cut down demands on local authorities. They should encourage participation. The charters are all designed to give the ordinary citizen some means of attacking or stopping the Executive. What is wanted is a means by which the ordinary citizen can feel that he has more power over the decisions of the Executive, whether local authority or government. The Government need to take a fundamental look at the organisation of local government. They should see how much responsibility local councillors can discharge and whether they need to be paid. Perhaps they do, although I should object to it. If they do not, a reduced local government must be so organised to enable democracy to function. By democracy I do not mean merely a few retired members of the upper middle class; I mean ordinary working men. The ordinary working man should be able to take some part in running the affairs of his community. Far too much government is tailored in this country to suit the middle classes and particularly the retired middle classes, of which no better example exists than the House of Lords.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, what this country needs at this moment in time is a conservative government. Whenever I go round the country I am told so by industrialists and other people. I have come to the conclusion that they are right. Indeed, having regard to the havoc, the destruction, the bankruptcies and the despair created in industry and among individuals everywhere, I would settle for a Conservative government (with a capital C) for a few months. However, I am not speaking in that sense. I speak of a government that will proceed (as did all previous

1621
governments before 1979) to change the institutions of the country by discussion, agreement and, so far as possible, consensus.
I once said at a Cabinet committee meeting that all the best Conservatives were socialists and all the best socialists were conservative. I think that there is some truth in that statement. I say that in the presence of my old friend, who is now the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. We were discussing at that time his appointment, at my invitation, to look into problems on Exmoor where farmers were ploughing up the country's national heritage. There was some astonishment expressed, particularly by Mr. Michael Foot, at my suggestion that the noble Earl should undertake the job on my behalf. "Isn't he a Conservative?" I was asked. I said, "I do not know if he is a Conservative but the fact of the matter is that if you want any change undertaken in this country, especially in the days of a Labour Government, you need a good Conservative to carry it out." I can only say that the good Conservative or near-Conservative, the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, did a splendid job for us on that occasion.
The point I want to make is that if one wants change it must be done by consent and agreement. People must be carried along with it. We do not have anything like that today. My noble friend Lord Williams, who is to be congratulated on raising this matter, said that we were moving to Soviet-style government. I have a lot of sympathy with that proposition. We now have departments of state which are constructed on the Soviet principle. They are little soviets. Heading each one of them is a commissar whom we describe as the Secretary of State. Those Secretaries of State or commissars are governing by diktat—their diktat —not in any way by agreement with local government or anyone else.
It seems that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has a lot of sympathy with that view. Throughout the whole of his extraordinary speech he showed great joviality, laughing and indicating—or so I thought—that he did not believe a word of the brief that he had been called upon to offer the House. Indeed, he concluded by saying that the Government believed in local leadership. He was not able to give a single example of anybody in local leadership anywhere in the country who supports his or the Government's view. He certainly could not find one today on his own Benches. There has only been one speech, apart from the Minister's, from that side. It was a striking speech from my old colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Prentice, who gave an extremely thoughtful speech on which the Government, if they had any sense (if I might say so without embarrassing the noble Lord) should build, especially having regard to the declared intention of the Prime Minister to try to move forward in terms of local government action. That is the one hopeful sign that we have at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned the arrogance of power that we now see in the behaviour of Ministers. That is causing much alarm throughout the country right across the political spectrum. It is seen every day in the way in which they approach their
1622
work. It comes from the total, absolute power that they have given themselves. Lord Acton's dictum was never more appropriate than today. It is almost a text for this debate; all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I might also add, in reference to the arrogance of Ministers, that this is an opportune moment to recall the words of Henry Kissinger who reminded us that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. I am bound to say that Ministers behave as if the power that they possess is an aphrodisiac. It always was, and it is a matter of great concern to us. All the things that they do, all these acts of personal and political arrogance, eventually come unstuck and have to be thought through again.
The poll tax is the obvious example. My noble friend Lord Williams reminded us of the speech of Michael Howard at the Basingstoke Conservative Supper Club. When I read what he said I assumed that he had had a very good supper indeed before addressing his audience. He told them that the poll tax would give power to the people. As has been said—one does not need to repeat it—that has in many ways happened.
Wherever we look we find the growth of quangos. Some of us have been involved in quangos. But today it is impossible to find out how one can make them publicly accountable. Whatever anyone says about local government, local government elections happen year after year and local councillors are called to account. That is a fundamental principle of tremendous importance. All the capping restraints, all the various government circulars imposing conditions on local government, the standard spending assessments and so on, are undermining local government democracy.
I have been a Minister in a government who themselves have had to say to local government, in the words of the late Tony Crosland, "The party is over". Governments have to have regard to public expenditure. I do not disagree with that. But today the Minister did not relate anything that he told us to the people who are being governed. At the end of the day it is the effect of government legislation on the quality of life and on the government of the people that is of tremendous importance to us.
I want to turn to one or two examples which are perhaps rather different from some of those that have been given in the debate. Perhaps I may start with my own great love of sport. We have had the Government dictating to local authorities the terms and conditions on which sports centres can be operated. We have had the Government responsible for a situation in which they are pricing out of sports centres around the country the very people who, especially at this time, we should be attracting into sports centres. We have had the Government instructing local authorities and education authorities to sell off playing fields at the very time we have trouble on our streets and in our communities and we should be opening up more and more playing fields and getting people involved in healthy pursuits. I am convinced that most of the trouble that comes under the heading of juvenile delinquency and football hooliganism originates from

1623
boredom in society. Unless we provide opportunities for people healthily to engage themselves in this way we shall not solve the problem.
With the opt-out of schools we now have a ludicrous situation in Birmingham. The local authority has put £1 million into a school which it is very content should become grant maintained. However, the local authority will now be totally dominated by the school governors and the headmaster on the question of whether the facilities provided at great expense by the local authority can be used by the people for whom they were provided or whether they are used exclusively by the school's narrow population. That is one aspect of what is happening.
Commissioner Patten, who is the commissar at the head of the Department for Education, is wreaking havoc wherever he turns his attention. School sports, the base on which all British sport is built, have been almost destroyed as a voluntary activity in this country. Such is the feeling that has been generated in the teaching profession, one cannot find teachers who will turn out on Saturday mornings or afternoons, or after school hours, in order to take school cricket teams, football teams or athletics meetings, all of which are the foundation of British international sport. It is a serious matter.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, mentioned the Sheffield student games and quoted what Michael Howard said in a derogatory manner about Sheffield. Can we have a clear philosophy from the Government? Sheffield, to its great credit, went in for the World Student Games at great cost. It has had to find every penny itself and it has not received a dime of help from the Government. Edinburgh staged the Commonwealth Games and built facilities without any help from the Government. Birmingham has built the national indoor arena for the nation without a penny from the Government. However, all of a sudden the Government have discovered Manchester and think, for reasons which can only be described as political, that it might be a good idea to get the Olympic Games in the year 2000. I am in favour of the Government giving help to Manchester—let there be no misunderstanding about that—but the question I ask is how it can possibly be ethical or fair to offer help to one city in the hope that it gets the Olympic Games in the future but deny help to people who provide facilities for international sporting festivals and whose ratepayers have been left for years to come to carry the can in that respect.
This arrogance of power is now assuming extraordinary proportions in the health service. Dudley Road Hospital, of which I was chairman for 15 years—my noble friend Lady Fisher knows it very well—has gone through the process of consultation at every stage about building a new eye department, a new oncology department and a new pediatric department. The scheme has gone through and has ministerial approval. Suddenly, and very furtively, a body called the outbranch department, set up by the Ministry in Oxford, is reviewing all these procedures. The building of the eye hospital should have gone out to tender last Christmas in order to get it built by 1995,
1624
which is absolutely essential as the present eye hospital building will no longer be available. Now all this is to be reviewed. I want to say this to the Minister and I should be grateful if he would report it back. If the Government are to start reviewing procedures which have gone through in a statutory manner and have been approved by the Secretary of State, no alterations will be possible without that statutory procedure starting all over again. Everyone will have to be consulted and there will be a hideous delay of another two or three years. That is an example of what is happening as a result of this arrogance of power. We have a new Secretary of State who may change the procedures. The department will not consult anyone. It will not consult the local authority, the area health authority and so on.
I hope that out of this debate and the Prime Minister's new resolve, which is to be welcomed, that they the Government start talking to local government. One can do nothing before first talking. The Secretary of State for Education talks to nobody and listens to nobody. He does not meet teachers or parent teachers. When he came to Birmingham recently he did not meet representatives of the local authority or anybody else. He had a furtive, private meeting in an hotel to which he invited a few of his mates and no doubt hoped that nobody would hear about the meeting. It is for those reasons that I hope that this debate will help to move us towards a greater consensus in the politics of this country and that we get back to consultation, talk and consensus over the direction in which local government should move.
7 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I believe that we have had a fairly generous helping of hype from the Minister. I shall not endeavour to analyse that in any detail. I have one particular concern which I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention. As we all know, in May we are due to hold local authority elections on a countrywide basis. But I doubt whether even now Members of this House realise that for some areas the elections in 1993 will enable successful candidates to hold effective office for one year only. I refer of course to the proposals of the Secretary of State for Wales to reorganise the entire system of local government in the Principality, with full effect from 1st April 1995, but with an elected shadow organisation to be in place by May 1994. In other words, there will be further local government elections in Wales in about 12 months' time.
To quote the Welsh Office White Paper:
"elections to shadow authorities are to be held on a convenient day in 1994".
From that time the Secretary of State proposes that the shadows will exist pari passu with the present local government councils until the shadows take over in April 1995.
The Secretary of State has endeavoured to persuade existing local authorities to take preliminary action on the basis of the White Paper, without their having an opportunity even of seeing a draft Bill. However, I understand that in this endeavour he has not met with very much success. In the present state of government

1625
legislation it is difficult to see how the necessary Bill, when it is produced, can be given adequate attention in both Houses in time to justify the administrative timetable proposed. The White Paper appeared only a few weeks ago—needless to say, on 1st March which is St. David's Day.
In his foreword the Secretary of State expresses the hope,
"that as many people as possible will take the opportunity to read"—
his proposals, for—
"they deal with a vital issue".
Ordinary people might be more likely to study the proposals if the price of the White Paper had been, shall we say, £5 instead of the £11 which is charged for 36½ printed pages in English. In Welsh it is a slightly better bargain because we take rather longer to say things and one gets 37½ pages for £11. I have always thought that the way in which Her Majesty's Stationery Office has been organised in the past decade or so is an enemy to democracy.
Naturally, there had been some prior consultations, but from such evidence as one can glean, most of the responses, including some of those from the local authorities, were based on self-interest rather than the common good. The Secretary of State criticises previous local government reform in Wales as unsuccessful. He nevertheless calls in aid the example of his predecessors in the Welsh Office for not entrusting the preliminary investigations to an independent commission. A number of us believe that that would have been a much wiser procedure to follow. However, unlike England, the constitutional proposals and disposals in Wales are all in the hands of the Secretary of State, which makes scrutiny and discussion of the prospective Bill all the more vitally important.
Outside the Welsh Office, I do not believe that there is any feeling of desperate urgency in the Principality to turn the whole structure of local government upside down. There are serious reservations about some of the geographical entities proposed, the most obvious being the retention of the county of Powys as an area quite out of keeping with the general scheme. In those circumstances there can be no rational objection to Montgomeryshire reverting to independent status if it so wishes. I observe that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is not in the House. He is leading a campaign in Montgomeryshire with which I sympathise, having been a former resident there, that Montgomeryshire should be allowed to manage its own affairs as other former counties are allowed to under the proposals.
At the other end of the scale, as Ystradgynlais has indicated, by a well-supported local referendum, it does not want to be switched as is proposed, for fairly obvious political reasons, by the Secretary of State. If local wishes and opinion mean anything, Ystradgynlais should be allowed to remain as it is. The Secretary of State said that, without wholehearted public support, the structure of local government cannot be effective. In Ystradgynlais the people's voice should therefore be heard.
This is not the occasion to examine the White Paper in detail, but we are genuinely faced with a very
1626
serious situation. Small, unitary authorities—I am not speaking of the cities—do not necessarily solve the domestic problems of Wales. Nor will 21 relatively small authorities be strong enough and united enough to stand up to central government when and where that may be required. For strategic planning in its broadest social as well as physical sense, do we not need an all-Wales directly or indirectly elected body? That matter is pushed aside entirely by the current Administration which is happy to depend on a subservient Welsh Office and an ever-increasing regiment of personally appointed quangos and other centralised agencies to which reference has already been made in this debate. I have had it confirmed today by the Welsh Office that the number of such appointed bodies in Wales—which is a small country with hardly 3 million population in total—is no fewer than 160. That seems rather a large ration for what is after all a fairly small community. But there they are. To some extent they are all —I do not like to use the expression "creatures of the Secretary of State"—dependent on him.
I do not believe that we should abandon the present structure of local government in Wales before we have thought these matters through much more thoroughly. Hardly surprisingly of course, they are not dealt with at all in the White Paper. Nor, with all the current financial pressures, should we unthinkingly embark on an exercise, the cost of which was, I believe, at first estimated to amount to between £60 million and £150 million, but for which the current estimate is said to be much nearer £300 million. That is a luxury which our small population may find it difficult to afford. We can do a great deal with that amount of money in some of our poorer areas.
It is far from clear how far the proposed unitary authorities will in fact have to engage in elaborate collaborative activities and come to the conclusion that joint services will be necessary. It is difficult to rely on estimates from interested parties, among whom the Secretary of State for Wales easily ranks first. But, in any case, is it really local government which is foremost in his mind or are there some other even more predominantly political considerations which influence his train of thought? One can only surmise, but before very long we shall have to consider local democracy in Wales at length and in considerable detail.
When I jotted down my notes, I did not know that we should have such a relatively lengthy amount of time for this debate and, as a few moments of the time allotted to me are left, I hope that I may have your Lordships' indulgence to read a brief appendix to the eloquent plea for public support for the arts given my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris a short time ago. I owe this quotation to an officer of the Development Board for Rural Wales who 10 days ago attended a seminar of the Prince of Wales' Committee which was held in that very agreeable seaside resort of Llandudno. His account reads as follows:
"A company Chairman was given a ticket for a performance of Schubert's Unfinished Symphony. He could not go so he passed on the invitation to the company's Quality Consultant. The next morning the Chairman asked him how he had enjoyed it … he was handed a memo which read:—

1627

(a) For considerable periods the four oboe players had nothing to do. The number should be reduced and the work spread over the whole orchestra—thus eliminating peaks of inactivity.

(b) All twelve violins were playing identical notes—this seems unnecessary duplication—the staff of this section should be drastically cut. If a large volume of sound is really required—this could be obtained through an electronic amplifier.

(c) Much effort was absorbed in the playing of demi-semi-quavers—This seems an excessive refinement. It is recommended that all notes should be rounded up to the nearest semi-quaver. If this were done—it should be possible to use trainees and low grade operators.

No useful purpose is served by repeating with the horns the passage already handled by the strings. If all such redundant passages were eliminated the concert could be reduced from 2 hours to 20 minutes.
If Schubert had attended to these matters he would possibly have been able to finish the Symphony after all. In the unfinished symphony of life, we live in a society of work study consultants. Our lives are increasingly measured by yardsticks of quantity rather than quality … we have to determine whether we are lesser people for it."
I am sure that we all know the answer.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, at this late hour, I hesitate to follow the previous speaker, my noble friend Lady White, because I am sure that I shall not do half as well as she did. I must first declare an interest as a member of Manchester City Council. I am not sure whether it is a vested interest, but I do have an interest in local democracy as a result of that position.
I should like to give your Lordships a few examples of local democracy, then say a few words about the financial constraints on local government, and then give an explanation of how local government has come to the aid of the nation during the past 15 years and of how it is being prevented by the Government from coming to the aid of the nation now. Perhaps I could begin with a very local example. In my ward, Brooklands Road extends for some two miles. It is a dead straight road. Half of it is in the City of Manchester and half in the Borough of Trafford. As your Lordships may appreciate, there is a tremendous tendency for motorists to barrel down dead straight roads at a great rate of knots. When such a road is a major highway, it bears a lot of traffic. In fact, this is one of the busiest roads in Manchester. The net result is that it is very difficult for pedestrians to cross it because enormous numbers of vehicles travel down it at fairly high speeds and one has literally to take one's life in one's hands, or feet, and dash like mad to get across.
The point of the story is that on Monday Manchester City Council opened, or switched on, the second pedestrian crossing across that road within the Manchester portion of it. There is not one pedestrian crossing, however, on the Trafford portion of the road. That is a little example of the diversity of local democracy. It has been pressure by local councillors on the Manchester side (in response to the local people) that has caused two pedestrian crossings to be constructed there. There is not the same degree of pressure on local councillors on the Trafford side so there is no pedestrian crossing on that part of the road. Different communities have different priorities.
1628
Another example (in a slightly less local atmosphere) is the difference between high schools in Manchester and in Trafford. Trafford has a system of selective education. At 11-plus the children are segregated into those who are deemed worthy of a grammar school education and those who are not deemed worthy of benefiting from a grammar school education. Those are the sort of words that are used. Trafford actually says that a proportion of its children will not benefit from a grammar school education. That is mind boggling. In Manchester, we have a comprehensive system of education. There is no segregation. Parents send their children to the school of their choice. Most children in Manchester go to their local high school.
Over the past few years one of the interesting results of the interference of central government in local government has been the ability of schools to opt out of local authority administration. The net result of that interference by central government in local government affairs on the education front is that no schools in Manchester have yet opted out. We have had one ballot which was enormously, decisively in favour of the school staying with the local education authority. In Trafford, in contrast, three schools (all secondary modern-type schools) have determined to opt out of local education authority control. Effectively, the parents, staff and governors of those schools have determined that they want nothing to do with the selective system of education. I suppose that that is a mechanism of local accountability, but I am not sure that it is terribly beneficial in supporting the Government's view of the way in which education should be conducted in this country.
Bringing matters onto a higher—or perhaps a wider—level, I know that Members of your Lordships' House have good memories and that quite a number go back a good number of years. I am sure, therefore, that your Lordships will remember the existence of the metropolitan counties which this Government abolished in 1985. One of the interesting things about the metropolitan counties was that because they covered different geographical areas and different urban conurbations each had different problems, and different solutions were available to resolve those problems.
We need look at just one area—waste disposal—which was a responsibility laid upon the metropolitan counties. In South Yorkshire, the waste disposal problem was resolved relatively easily and cheaply because as a result of the abstraction of minerals there were many holes in the ground which could be filled with waste. The Greater Manchester conurbation did not have such a plentiful supply of cheap holes. So the waste disposal authority investigated and developed the conversion of waste into oil. That was coming to fruition at the time when, unfortunately, the metropolitan county was abolished by the Government. That is an example of how two different authorities tackled a problem which had local and distinctive variations.
The last example I give relates to an area where there is virtually no democratic accountability. That is, unfortunately, the NHS. There are two distinct

1629
communities in the southern part of Manchester. There is Wythenshawe which is the urban conurbation to the south of the Mersey and the M.63 motorway. To the north of that boundary is Withington. They are two distinct communities which form the South Manchester Health Authority. For good reasons, there are two hospitals. There is the Withington Hospital and the Wythenshawe Hospital. The South Manchester Health Authority is currently engaged, and has been for the past two to three years, in effectively closing one hospital and relocating all the services to the other. That is being done in the teeth of local opposition. Every councillor, every MP in the area, and virtually every member of the community, realises that it is a nonsense and wrong for the community of southern Manchester.
Because the health authority is not democratic—it is effectively controlled by Whitehall—the decision is being made in the teeth of local opposition. That will mean that the people who live on the wrong side of the boundary between those two communities will be deprived of a local hospital. Enough of examples.
I shall touch now upon financial constraints. In the mid-1980s local authorities, broadly speaking, could borrow money on the capital markets and raise local revenue through the rates, which were a progressive form of taxation. By that I mean that the wealthier people paid more and the poorer people paid less. Unfortunately, the Government saw fit to interfere with that system of local government finance. Apart from reducing the revenue support grant, the Government introduced first, the poll tax, and then the council tax. Both were capped. They are both regressive forms of taxation, although the council tax is slightly more progressive than the poll tax.
Central government places strong constraints on local government capital borrowing. As a result, local authorities have little flexibility when it comes to raising additional revenue and spending it locally. They are effectively circumscribed by central government in those areas. Consequently, we cannot come to the aid of the Government during this recession. We are currently going through the deepest and longest recession since the 1930s. That is almost as long as living memory. At least, it is longer than my living memory. I am aware that many of your Lordships lived through the 1930s and experienced the horrors of that time.
In the early 1980s the Government instituted policies similar to those which caused this recession and we suffered a similar recession. But in the mid-1980s local authorities borrowed money, raised rates and generated economic activity. That helped pull the country out of recession. We cannot do that now, so the responsibility for getting us out of the recession lies with the Government. They must take action to deal with the problem. One of the ways in which they can do that is by relaxing the existing constraints on local government and relaxing the capping of the council tax to enable local government to raise revenue and capital to spend in productive
1630
economic activity, rather than by the Government borrowing money to pay people to be unemployed and on the dole.
7.27 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, at the core of the debate is what local government is and what it is for. Local government, the Government believe, says too much; does too much; spends too much; and, above all, is Labour too much. Central government wishes that local government was unnecessary, but even in centralised Britain not everything can be done from Whitehall. Therefore, they believe that local government should function, not as local, and not as government, but as a business enterprise subject to the market discipline and competition—never mind the fact that British business which local government is supposed to emulate is among the weakest in Europe, or that the traditions of public administration that local government represents and is required to abandon, are among the most respected in Europe; never mind that local government, required to function as a business, is being asked to do so without being allowed by the Government the basic rights of any business to plan, to invest, to manage its own financial affairs, to recycle its assets and to respond to its customers. They are skills without which even a winkle stall in Great Yarmouth would not survive the season.
Why not, my Lords? Because the Government insist that local government exists to administer locally the policies that the Government have determined centrally—the Minister said so himself—with as much uniformity, as little discussion and as cheaply as possible. Therefore, democratically elected councillors, as my noble friend Lord Longford said, are rather a nuisance. So, to bring them into line, we have had something like 152 Local Government Acts since 1979. Do councillors spend too much? Then control and cap their finances. Do they do too much? Well, remove many of their responsibilities to central government and quangos and privatise the provision of the rest. Do they say too much? Well, sack them from bodies such as health and water, whose services should interlock with local government and, under the Widdicombe rules, silence their dissent. Is it Labour too much? That is the deepest sin of all. Harangue it; subvert it; ultimately marginalise it.
Perhaps I may explore those points. "It spends too much", say the Government. The Government's first argument in coming into power in 1979 was that local authority expenditure was rising, was out of control and was displacing private-sector investment. Not one of those arguments is true. Local government expenditure as a percentage of GDP was falling while central Government expenditure was rising and, as we now know, was out of control. As a percentage of GDP, local government expenditure is one of the lowest in Europe.
Nor was local government displacing private investment. On the contrary, every job created in local government creates a job in private-sector supply industries. The infrastructure which local government provides—for instance, roads, training and housing

1631
—is essential to healthy industry. But that did not stop the Government controlling our borrowing or cutting our grant by £25 billion during a decade. Rates rose to compensate for the loss of grant. Had they not done so, rates would have risen by less than the rate of inflation during the period of Tory Government.
So in the mid-1980s the Government moved to their second argument about finance; that central government needed control of local government finance as part of macro economic policies. Again, that argument was revisited by the Minister tonight. They nationalised the business rate thereby ensuring that central government controlled 85 per cent. and not 45 per cent. of local authority revenues. That was an act of supreme folly because at a stroke it broke the link between the business community and local authorities. There was nothing that a local authority could do to improve its business revenues as a result of the Government's nationalisation of the rate, so why should they bother? That was quite perverse.
But still local voters voted Labour so the Government's policy was to make what was left of local revenues even more painful. They invented the poll tax, an Act of such supreme statesmanship that it had to be reversed within a couple of years. By the late 1980s local government raised only 15 per cent. of its money. The Government could therefore no longer argue that it was a burden on the private sector and that it deformed government economic policy. Therefore, they hit on a new argument; that we needed a further centralisation of finance to protect the local taxpayers from the Labour councils which they so foolishly persisted in electing. The Government introduced universal capping based on standard spending assessment criteria. That regarded Kent as more educationally deprived than Barnsley; as Brent having more snow than Cumbria and ignoring unemployment altogether. And as it so happened they each and every year gave more money to Westminster and Wandsworth; one year because Westminster had too many extra people as a result of tourists coming in by day, and the next year because it had too few people as a result of commuters going home by night.
Those standard spending assessments were used to determine not only grant but capping. With capping, the Secretary of State finally overcame the problem of voters electing Labour councils. For whatever and whomever they voted, the Secretary of State would determine what they received. Whatever the majority vote or view only one vote and one voice would prevail; that of the Secretary of State. Whatever people voted for, whatever they were willing to pay for and whatever they were willing to raise from local revenues was irrelevant. Voters, citizens, were to be protected from their own democratic judgment.
As a result, we now have in the field of finance grant fixed by central government; we have the business rate fixed by central government; we have capital borrowing limits fixed by central government; we have housing borrowing fixed by central government; and we have our own local council tax revenues fixed by central government. So much for local government. We see the consequences around us. We see them in housing with social housing starts only a fraction of
1632
the 100,000 starts per year needed. We see young people sleeping rough. We see families waiting months in bed-and-breakfast accommodation rather than just for the crisis weekend. We see elderly people waiting for the sheltered housing which will never be built.
Meanwhile, the housing stock deteriorates. My own local authority saw its housing allocation cut from £17.5 million to £9 million and can barely repair its own stock. It certainly cannot meet the proper demand for mandatory repair grants in the private sector. As a result, housing stock falls into serious disrepair—probably a quarter has already done so—and we face decades of slum clearance. Those problems are not inevitable. The housing problems were constructed by the Government. They are housing problems which we do not need to have and which no civilised society should tolerate.
As regards social services, we see that community care has been so underfunded that the government chief inspector has to warn local authorities not to tell the disabled and the frail what they are entitled to in case they should happen to ask for it, which would take the counties through their capping limit. My noble friend Lord Parry described educational cuts and my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris described the effects of the cuts on the arts. Your Lordships will not need me to repeat that. My noble friend Lord Howell mentioned what is happening in sport and my noble friend Lord Bottomley spoke of the effect of the cuts in Cleveland.
In my local authority of Norwich, there were two swimming pools; one outdoor and the other indoor. As a result of the cuts, the outdoor pool has had to close and this year children will not learn to swim. To turn to amenities, the city's glass-houses, which since the 17th century and the Dutch emigres have made the city a garden of flowers, have had to close. There will be no flowers provided by the city on the roundabout nor in its public buildings. As regards economic development, one sees sheltered workshops for children and young people with special needs at risk of closure. That is just in one city.
Why is such suffering necessary? Is our national economy really the stronger because a young man with special needs no longer receives training? Is our manufacturing base really the stronger because an elderly couple do not obtain central heating or sheltered housing? If we cannot answer yes to those questions, as I believe we cannot, the Government have no moral authority to require local authorities to inflict such damage on our services.
But over and beyond the cuts, the controls and the centralisation—that is centralisation of finance and the cuts in services which I have mentioned—a more serious challenge was mentioned by almost every speaker today. It is the removal of local government responsibilities to unaccountable private agencies and unelected quangos. In the field of housing, as was said by my noble friend Lord Williams, while local authorities retain all the statutory responsibilities for housing, housing associations are to be the main providers and the Housing Corporation seems increasingly reluctant to work with local authorities in determining the strategy.

1633
We could look at education and training. From opt-out schools to TECs, and to the new funding agencies we see the incremental destruction of local educational authorities. We could look at planning. From enterprise zones to UDCs, and to the new urban regeneration agencies, we see the removal of planning powers from local government. Therefore —and this is what it means—the power of local government to ensure that new development benefits the local community in which it is sited. That is to say nothing about the removal of local councillors from health authorities, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Monkswell, at the very time when community care requires that very interconnectedness which the Government have destroyed—or their removal from water authorities or, as my noble friend Lady Hilton so powerfully described, from the police authorities themselves.
Who replaces them? Why, businessmen, of course, thus meeting the three objectives of the Government; they are business methods, government policies and, as the DTI Minister said of the appointees, "never knowingly Labour", in a phrase which will come back to haunt her. One might ask why, if those business skills were so impressive, the country is in the mess that it is and if businessmen have all the spare time why is that not being applied to the rebuilding of British industry rather than to the wrecking of local government?
We have a new unelected magistracy, as so many of my noble friends have said. They are men—they are nearly always men—whose quangos spend more than local government spends in its entirety. There has been a threefold increase since 1979; as my noble friend Lady White said, 160 of those in Wales. There are many in East Anglia and in London.
Gladstone, Chamberlain and Salisbury spent the final quarter of the 19th century coralling the unelected quangos, the improvement commissioners, the health boards, the metropolitan board of works, the school boards and the JP poor law guardians into accountable local government. Why was that? There are two reasons. The first was that they recognised the problem of the democratic deficit. As Margaret Simey has said:
"Of those to whom responsibility is given, an account of their stewardship shall be required".
In a similar fashion, Professor John Stewart said:
"Those who exercise public power in society should be answerable for it because the power does not belong to those who exercise it, but it belongs to the citizens on whose behalf it is exercised".
Quangos are not locally accountable and are not even locally known. After all, they do their damnedest to keep the press out of their meetings in case what they do and say should be scrutinised by the people who pay for them. Without that scrutiny, quangos make poor policy, which is the second reason for bringing them back within democratic local government. By definition they are single service bodies confined to and blinkered by their boundaries. Inevitably each quango seeks to lower its costs by exporting whatever problems it can to others. My noble friend Lady Fisher powerfully described what
1634
happened with water authorities. They disconnected 21,000 houses last year. Therefore, there was a threefold increase in dysentery and hepatitis. Houses become unfit and families become ill. The bill for housing, social services and health authority rises but so do the water authorities' profits.
In a world of individualised quangos, pursuing their narrow interests and maximising profits, who has an eye to community need and the community interest? If local government does not perform that role, no other body can.
As I said at the beginning, we know what this Government require local government to be. It should be local administration—not local government—by local Tory businessmen (not elected councillors) of central government policies. That is the difference between us as the debate makes clear, although we have heard no arguments to the contrary from noble Lords opposite, apart from the Minister's opening speech.
What do we believe local government to be? We believe that it is a means by which a community defines and meets its local collective needs for those services like parks and libraries, which only the wealthy and worldly can buy for themselves. It also provides those services like travellers sites or special needs housing which only the altruistic and the worldly would provide. It also provides services like planning and policing which only those without original sin do not need.
Local government constructs the social and physical infrastructure of our lives. It helps in part to distribute life chances of the most disadvantaged so that just because you are poor does not necessarily mean that you live in an unfit house. Local government does not have to do all that itself, nor should it. It knits together partnerships with voluntary and commercial sectors but local government is what enables it all to happen.
If the primary function of local government is to define and meet local needs, the second function, in defining those needs and priorities, is a political process. That is the second reason that we value local government: it is about democratic values and enlargement of citizen's rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Prentice, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have said, local government represents pluralistic values which extend participatory democracy to, for example, tenants committees, decentralised offices and residents' associations in ways that allow people to own their lives and to become active citizens in their community.
The third reason that we value local government is that, unlike the Minister, we recognise the distinctiveness of local government. Norwich is not Nottingham any more than Cleveland, as my noble friend Lord Bottomley said, is Manchester. Local government is precisely about those local differences. It speaks for its place—whether a mining community, an ageing seaside resort, the Orkney Islands of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, an ancient cathedral city or a deprived inner borough—as no other body can. Yes, local government has customers for its services and it has constituents when defining needs, but above all it has

1635
citizens to whom it is accountable and to whom it offers choice. Perhaps the Government need reminding that government is about choice. Central government find it easy to forget that it is about a choice of policies, priorities and service levels. Local government offers that choice to its community. That is why this Motion has been moved today.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is one of the great privileges of being in your Lordships' House—and perhaps more so being one of the younger Members of the House—to be present in a debate which has certainly been steeped in history, experience and knowledge. We have heard mention of Herbert Morrison, Clement Attlee and the Labour Government of 1945. The noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, told us of how he became a Minister and secured his job as Secretary of State for the Commonwealth. My noble friend Lord Prentice recounted his experiences in 1945 when he became a local councillor for Croydon. He clearly has a tremendous perspective of how local government has changed over the course of the past 50 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, guided us through Beveridge in 1944 and Nye Bevan. The noble Lord told us about how the Welsh had built Liverpool. He forgot to tell the House how entrepreneurs had also built it, how free trade had built Liverpool and contributed so much to the wealth which was then lost by Labour local authorities during the 1970s and 1980s.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, told us why she became a Liberal and told us about the rise of Hitler in 1932. That reminded me of why I became a Conservative. That was because of the dark decade of the 1970s when the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was in office. Or was he? His Government abdicated power not to quangos, which are accountable to the Secretary of State and, therefore, to Parliament, but to what became the United Kingdom's national disgrace—the abdication of power to the trade unions which dragged us to the feet of the IMF and, most despicably, led to the Bills on devolution for Scotland and Wales which tried to break up the United Kingdom.
We heard about local democracy and decentralisation. That comes from a party that still has Clause 4 in its constitution and still has a commitment to nationalisation. It is a sham to have heard the noble Lord, Lord Howell, speak in the way that he did. That is why he and his party have been out of office for four consecutive elections; because they have not been forgiven by the people of this country for creating the disastrous economic conditions of the 1970s. That is repeated in every Lambeth, in every Liverpool and every Haringey local authority that is run by the Labour Party.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I can only say that most people in this country, certainly in industry, wish that they had a Labour Government at present. In view of what the noble Lord said about nationalisation, will
1636
he tell us why his party nationalised water without paying compensation, which is something that the Labour Party never would have done?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe that the Labour Party are still committed to renationalising it. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, has a very short memory. He complained about local authorities being bombarded by government circulars. That is a bit rich. In the last year of a Labour Government there were 1,873 government circulars issued to local authorities. By 1981–82 that figure had been reduced to 592 and it has stayed at that level ever since.
As to the detail of the controls, I shall give noble Lords some examples of the pre-1980 detailed controls on local government—they include those on appeals concerning bus shelters, bridge restrictions, street lighting and even arrangements for the provision of children's PE clothing. That came by direction of central government and yet noble Lords opposite talk about local democracy and decentralisation: it is all piffle.
Even the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, complained about capital controls on local government being too strict. Let us compare that with the Labour capital controls in the 1970s. Indeed, it was then a very tight squeeze. In the five years spanning 1975–76 to 1979–80 the real terms year-on-year changes in local authority capital expenditure were minus 12.9 per cent., minus 17.4 per cent., minus 21.7 per cent., minus 12.5 per cent. and minus 1.9 per cent. That is the record of the noble Lord's party.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I do not think that at any time during the 1970s unemployment went above 1.5 million. However, twice during the period of the past 15 years it has been over 3 million. I believe that that says something.
Lord Strathclyde: Of course, my Lords; it was because the Labour Government ran a policy with the trade unions which meant that they were not able to shake out British industry in a most necessary way, which every other developed country was doing at the time. That led to the recession of the early 1990s as has been recognised time and again. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. He opened his remarks this afternoon by quoting G.D.H. Cole. He has accused us of going back into history but now, as I am sure he recognises, he is himself returning to the 1970s. Can we please get on to the subject of the debate and get back to the 1990s?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall get on to the 1990s, but I have sat here listening to noble Lords opposite talking about the golden era of the 1950s, 1960s and the 1970s. I have listened to them and now they will listen to me.
Several speakers talked about the philosophy of local government. That philosophy is central to today's debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, talked about the difference in approach between her party and mine. She said that local democracy should

1637
come from the ground upwards rather than from central government downwards. I believe that possibly there is an irreconcilable difference between us on the matter. Modern local government is the creation of Parliament. It is for Parliament to decide the powers, functions and responsibilities of local government. The functions of local government are not immutable. There has been an ebb and flow of functions over the years. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, reminded us of our gas, our electricity, our hospitals and our water. They were all local authority functions. But no one really suggested that they should be so again.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I merely wish to remind the Minister that he told me in this Chamber that local government did not lose those powers.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, local government has clearly lost those powers and no one is suggesting that it should regain so many of them. For example, local government has just lost education; but, at the same time, it has gained care in the community which is a major new responsibility.
It is for Parliament to represent the nation as a whole—elected, if I may say so, by a far higher percentage of the electorate than the 35 per cent. to 40 per cent. that turn out in a good year for local elections—and to decide the role and functions of local government. That leads me on to something else mentioned by the noble Baroness as regards proportional representation. I do not think that we need go into that debate, but it will be interesting to see how the Labour Party dig themselves out of the hole that they have created on proportional representation.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, accused me of going back in time, but I believe that much of what I have heard today has been out of date. It has been out of date because more and more people on the ground in local government now accept that CCT is necessary and that it has provided much needed improvements. They accept that the "enabling authority" is the model for the future. In May last year, Councillor Jeremy Beecham, the leader of the Labour-controlled Association of Metropolitan Authorities, said:
"Local government should be ready to admit that CCT has brought cost effectiveness and genuine savings that might not otherwise have been achieved".
I suggest to noble Lords that they are also out of date in criticising the state in central-local relations. They do not seem to be aware of the very real progress in that area over the past few years. It is the result of much hard work by both sides to build up co-operation and understanding and thereby create a new understanding relationship. Perhaps I may give the House just a few examples. There are now regular two-monthly meetings between the Secretary of State and the chairmen of the three local authority associations at which problems can be anticipated and defused. At those meetings, the views of local authorities are taken on board at an early stage and in
1638
an informal way. There are also regular seminars for senior officials from both sides. Moreover, a year ago the Secretary of State and Association Chairmen jointly launched the secondments initiative programme (SIP). That is a major initiative aimed at achieving 140 new secondments between central and local government over three years. Those secondments of executive and policy officers will greatly increase mutual understanding and co-operation and the flow of new ideas and best practice between the two sides.
But the best and most concrete example of successful central-local government co-operation must be the way in which the council tax has been introduced. That allows me to turn once again to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on local income tax. The noble Baroness knows perfectly well why this Government regard local income tax as not workable. If taxpayers were required to make the same contribution as they currently do to local services through a local income tax, it would mean either an increase in the income tax rate of four pence in the pound, or £600 extra on an income of £20,000. That excludes all the terrible related problems of tax evasion, the self-employed, local brain drains, and so on. But I am sure that the noble Baroness has thought the matter through.
I turn now to the question of local taxation and business rates, which was raised both by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. The existing system ensures that a very fair and even distribution of the resources is derived from the business rate without placing areas with a high concentration of business at an unfair advantage over others. The Government also seek to protect businesses from excessive burdens. Between 1979 and 1990 the business rate poundage set by the local authority so admired by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, rose by nearly 40 per cent. more than inflation and that, incidentally, was paid by businesses that have no direct vote under the current system. Under the current system the poundage cannot increase more than inflation. If the business rate had not been introduced, business would have paid a full £1 billion more in 1990–91. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to intervene. I give way.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am most grateful. Is the Minister challenging my assertion that, had government grant remained constant and, therefore, there is no need to raise rates to compensate for its reduction, rates would have risen by less than inflation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is simply not the point; the point is that business rates in the hands of local authorities represented by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, squeezed their businesses to get more money from them. Forty per cent. higher than inflation cannot be something about which the noble Baroness is proud.
In 1990 in the UK, local government expenditure as a percentage of GDP was 11.3 per cent. In Belgium it was 6.6 per cent.; in France 8.5 per cent. and in Germany 5.8 per cent. Clearly, United Kingdom

1639
expenditure was the highest. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked about the lack of co-ordination between the Housing Corporation and local authorities. As the noble Lord correctly pointed out, local authorities are charged with the preparation of housing strategies. These strategies cover not just the need for renovation of its own and private sector stock but also deal with the need for new, affordable housing. I would be most surprised if a local authority were to achieve that aim without close co-ordination and discussion with local housing associations and with the Housing Corporation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, made a heartfelt plea on the question of the disconnection of water. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 water companies have powers to disconnect non-paying customers but they must first obtain a county court order. This gives them the protection of county court scrutiny of the circumstances. In assessing income support and other benefits the increase in water charges is taken into account by reference to the Rossi index. But the point about water is that currently the water companies have to put right decades of under-investment in the water infrastructure of this country. It is that that costs so much money.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, does the Minister not accept the figure I have, which shows that during the past five years water charges have increased by 50 per cent.? Also, does the Minister not accept that many companies in the water industry that were formerly public authorities are now investing in projects in other parts of the world, many of which do not even concern water? Those companies are using the assets of what were former public authorities to increase their profits so that they can increase the salaries of their personnel.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot confirm the figure the noble Baroness gave as regards the increase in water charges. However, I can confirm that when local authorities controlled water authorities the necessary investment to maintain the infrastructure of the water industry was breaking down. We introduced privatisation to solve that problem.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, complained that community care was a dog's breakfast. We have matched action to theory in community care. We are transferring to local authorities all the money the DSS would have spent had the previous arrangements continued. By 1995–96 this will amount to more than £1.5 billion in England alone. To that we have added a further £140 million this year to help local authorities take on their new responsibilities. Incidentally, they were keen to take on those responsibilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, asked about the pressures upon local authority funding. The Government accept that partnership with local authorities is vital to secure the health of the arts. For that reason we welcome the fact that the Arts Council and regional arts boards work so closely together with local authorities. While we recognise that currently there are constraints applying to public expenditure at both a central and local level, the
1640
Government hope that local authorities will continue to recognise that arts and cultural spending represents good value for money. As well as improving the quality of life it has significant economic benefits and can raise the national and even the international profile of an area.
I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, did not listen to my opening speech. I hope he will read it because it concentrates very much on the effect that local authorities have on people and on how we believe that people should control more aspects of their own lives. The Opposition parties talk about local democracy but they have no vision of the future role of local authorities. They can only envisage a return to the tired, sterile and unresponsive provider-centred, municipal socialism of the past. That does not work. It does not work in Monklands and Hackney. It did not work in Liverpool and it certainly does not work in Lambeth. The Government's vision of local democracy involves people having as much influence as possible over the services they receive.
Local authorities will continue to decide spending priorities for huge sums of public money but our aim is that local services should be organised as closely as possible to the consumer. We believe they should be as responsive as possible to the consumer. The Government's vision is of efficient, effective, performance-orientated authorities. We envisage authorities whose performance gains them the respect and the support of their communities. Because of that respect those authorities will be able to provide vitally needed local leadership. The Government's policies are bringing about a revolution in the quality of local services and they are strengthening and deepening local democracy. That is the democracy that is the reality of the many and not just the slogan of the politically active few.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been an interesting occasion and I am most grateful to the Minister for his heroic response. I thought he adopted a slightly high tenor in the early stages of it, but nevertheless we much enjoyed his performance. I shall do no more than ask leave to withdraw the Motion. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Disabled Persons (Services) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
8.6 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
For years a number of severely disabled people have received direct payments from local authorities to allow them to buy and organise their own personal assistance services which enable them to preserve their dignity and independence and to live as normal a life as possible. When Westminster discovered this splendid arrangement during the Committee stage of

1641
the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, the congenital snag-hunters soon went to work and the direct payments were declared illegal. It is high time that matter was put right, and this Bill will do exactly that.
I wish to illustrate the problem by asking each of your Lordships to imagine yourselves as a person who is so severely disabled that you are unable to get up in the morning without someone entering your home to help you. You are unable to get out of bed, to attend to your toilet requirements or to dress yourself and do everything else that is necessary to get yourself ready for a day's work. There are two ways of coping with this state of affairs. The first way is to have the local authority provide you with a personal assistance service. You are not sure which assistant will arrive or the time she will arrive. The assistant may have been delayed with another client and she could not arrive early enough to get you to work on time because local authority employment provisions prevent her from coming at the hours that you would prefer. Nevertheless you just have to put up with that.
The personal assistant who arrives may be the one you do not particularly like and she does not appear to like you. Nevertheless she has to take you to the loo, wash you, dress you, get you up and carry out all those intimate and personal tasks you would prefer to be able to do yourself. However, because of your physical disability you are unable to do so. There are other small tasks you would like to have carried out but that is not possible because they are outside the given remit. You are just one of many and even though you tell the assistant what you want to have done, the assistant is an employee of the local authority and is ultimately responsible to that authority and not to you. There is no doubt that you are not in control.
The other way of dealing with this problem is to receive direct payments from the local authority to enable you to arrange your own care and to choose your personal assistant yourself. In fact, you could have two so that if one is unexpectedly ill and cannot come you have another to call on. You know and like the person who is coming to get you up. If you want another small task done you can just ask and it will be done. If you need to get up particularly early one morning that can be arranged. Most important of all, you know that if things do not work out, you can employ somebody else.
There is no question of negotiation with the local authority. There is one relationship, which is between you and your personal assistant. There are none of those complicated tripartite arrangements which are cumbersome and ultimately unsatisfactory. You are in complete control and you have the privacy, security and confidence of knowing that everything will be done in the way that you require.
I have no doubt that your Lordships, and my noble friend the Minister, would prefer to receive direct payments, which, surprisingly, are cheaper and certainly less bureaucratic. They provide the
1642
independence which is essential for your Lordships to live as normal a life as possible. That is the essence of that Bill.
This is not a new issue to your Lordships' House. It has been raised on many occasions. Whenever it has been discussed there has been overwhelming support for the proposed measure from all sides of the House. It is eminently in line with the Government's stated community care policy. It is at the heart of empowerment, choice and independence. It gives disabled people real control over their lives. It has also been shown to be cost effective and efficient. Rather than costing the local authority more money, it will produce significant savings.
This is a policy which has been called for by disabled people up and down the land, by local authority associations, by users and professional experts in community care, by the Audit Commission, the Prince of Wales' Advisory Group on Disability, the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Directors of Social Services.
Such direct payments have been made for a number of years. The proof that they work is out there for all of us to see. A survey by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation in 1990 revealed that 23 per cent. of local authorities were making direct payments.
It also has considerable support from Government Ministers. Indeed, every time we hear a health Minister speak on the issue we seem to get nearer to agreeing that this is the way forward. The most recent words were from the Minister for Disabled People, Nicholas Scott, during the Committee stage of the Disability (Grants) Bill. He said:
"No one who has stayed in close touch with the work of the Independent Living Fund can be unaware of the importance of cash, as opposed to services, to empower disabled people to have control over their lives".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 25/3/93; col. 52.]
Speaking during the Second Reading debate on the same Bill Alistair Burt said:
"The Government have given careful consideration to local authority payments and we have decided that at this stage it would not be wise to introduce such provision. However, I see no reason for that to be an irreversible decision".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/93; Col. 115.]
So what exactly does the Bill propose? It empowers local authorities to make direct cash payments in place of services. It has no cost implications. Indeed, as I have mentioned, it saves money. A person is assessed as needing a given level of personal assistance and instead of providing the services a cash payment is given. The Bill amends the National Assistance Act 1948, which is interpreted by the Department of Health as currently preventing local authorities from making cash payments.
In the Committee stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Act in another place, Virginia Bottomley said:
"Frankly, there is a lack of clarity in the way in which some authorities have been experimenting in what is an innovative but … valuable approach … I shall reconsider the proposal because the issue is complex. The basic commitment is there, and we may table a clearer and more specific amendment when the Bill is in another place". —[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 22/2/90; col. 1230.]

1643
However, the amendment never materialised. Previously supportive Ministers said that they had been unable to come up with an amendment.
The final bombshell came when the Department of Health advised local authorities in its guidance that direct payments were illegal. That firm advice is now having repercussions in the community as some local authorities are having to change their direct payment schemes into schemes where payments are made through a third party. That adds unnecessary bureaucracy and administrative costs rise. It is an intrusion into an individual's private life.
Perhaps I could give the case of Mr. A. as an example of the sort of tripartite arrangement the Government envisage in their policy guidance to local authorities. Mr. A. employs the staff and manages them on a day-to-day basis, but the staff are paid by the local authority and are therefore subject to the guidelines and employment practices laid down by that local authority. That restricts the hours they work and the length of shifts. It means that they are ultimately responsible to the local authority and not to Mr. A. It leaves Mr. A in the position where the authority says that he has control but in practice he does not have the flexibility and real control of the direct payments arrangements. He cannot even decide when he goes to bed. The fact that it does not work is hardly surprising.
The Bill would change that and allow the schemes to continue and flourish. The Bill restricts the scheme to people who are in receipt of attendance allowance or the care component of the disability living allowance. They are by definition severely disabled. That was done for two reasons. First, the ability to control one's own cash and therefore one's personal assistance is more critical to someone who is heavily dependent. Local authority services, however excellent, are not geared to providing the high degree of service provision necessary, even though the number of people requiring it is small.
Secondly, it has been done in response to concerns that such provision would open the floodgates, which has always been the way to sink a new idea. The Bill is phrased in such a way that there is no compulsion on the part of an individual to receive direct payments. That is to prevent the scenario arising where local authorities no longer provide services of any kind but simply administer cash, a situation which no one could support.
The administrative procedures are simple. A person requiring services is assessed under the National Health Service and Community Care Act. It will become apparent whether the person wishes to receive direct payments and is capable of doing so. If he is willing to take on the intricacies of employing his own staff that option is open to him.
The proposal is merely an empowering one. The local authority does not need to make a payment to anyone it considers unsuitable. However, research has shown that with support from friends, relations and sometimes social services departments, the success of coping with direct payments brings a considerable sense of achievement and self esteem, often to the whole family. Ann Kestenbaum's Report Cash for
1644
Care discusses that aspect. It contains the following typical comment from a disabled person in receipt of direct payments:
"It makes us feel in control of our lives. Gives us back the feeling of being people and not a pathetic handicapped family".
That comment was made by a lady with rheumatoid arthritis.
The Bill is modest in its proposals, yet the policy of direct payments has been described as the litmus test of the Government's commitment to independent living. The Bill is eminently conservative in its approach and has the widespread support of all shades of political opinion.
What about its cost-effectiveness? When the costs of the proposal were first considered fears were expressed that they would grow like Topsy, as has happened with the Independent Living Fund. I hope that I have made it clear that the only cost implications are savings. What is proposed is nothing like the Independent Living Fund, which required new money. This is simply a different way of delivering a given level of agreed service provision. A number of excellent publications have shown just how cost-effective direct payments are. The overwhelming evidence is that often a cash payment to someone living in his own home would be much cheaper than a place in a residential care home.
Let us take Mrs. D., for example. She is young and married. She works as a training director and pays taxes. She receives a cash payment from her local authority, makes her own personal assistance arrangements and employs whom she likes and the hours that they work. A place in a residential home would be considerably more costly and it would not give her the flexibility that she needs in order to work, let alone to allow her a proper family life, choosing her friends, when she sees them and allowing her to live a fulfilled and dignified life in the community.
There are a number of reasons why the scheme is cost effective. First, it gives the best value service as it provides exactly what the disabled person needs and not the local authority's view of what the disabled person needs. In a particularly helpful contribution during the Second Reading of the Disability (Grants) Bill, on 15th March 1993, Mr. Alan Howarth, stated:
"Notwithstanding the personal commitment of local authority staff, bureaucracies are always liable to fit the client to the service, rather than the other way round".
He continued by quoting the disabled woman, Elizabeth, who said,
"Yes, sometimes they're very patronising. They're overbearing and they want to do more than I actually need". [Official Report, Commons, 15/3/93; col. 63.]
Secondly, the scheme boosts morale. That was revealed in Ann Kestenbaum's report. I quote one of the disabled people involved who stated:
"If you have a carer you feel safe with, you know your quality of life is better. It opens things up. Your personality changes. You laugh".
Direct payments are a great boost to morale, and having a high morale directly enhances the body's defences against illnesses of all kinds. As a result people have fewer illnesses and thereby save the National Health Service money.

1645
Thirdly, direct payments reduce costs by circumventing considerable administrative and bureaucratic procedures. One of the direct consequences of the Government's advice on direct payments has been to force some local authorities to make payments through a third party. That creates even more unnecessary bureaucracy. As the country is already knee deep in the thick treacle of bureaucracy we really need less and not more.
One social worker charged with changing a direct payment scheme to an indirect payment arrangement said, "They are paying me to push bits of paper around and set up meetings to sort things out when my time would be far better spent on much needed direct case work. It will probably cost a further £700 a year for the scheme in our authority".
Fourthly, there is also the cost benefit of having one person who is flexible enough to do any of the many tasks that need to be carried out. A fifth reason why direct payments are so cost effective is that the degree of empowerment and flexibility often makes the difference between the person being able to work or not. Many of your Lordships have been sent details of individuals receiving direct payments, and for the majority of them it has meant that they have been able to work and to contribute to society. They also pay taxes which is a very obvious, tangible cost benefit.
An evaluation of the Greenwich Personal Assistance Scheme by Mike Oliver and Gerry Zarb suggests that Greenwich Council could have purchased just under 66,000 hours of home help with its £5 million - plus budget. However, for the same amount the personal assistance schemes could have purchased nearly twice that amount: just over one million hours of home help. Similar comparisons can be made for the employment of care attendants.
I wish to quote from the foreword to the evaluation by Mr. Nicholas Scott, Minister for Disabled People. He states:
"This report on Personal Assistance Schemes in Greenwich shows that as well as being cost effective, such schemes offer disabled people a greater degree of independence when compared with traditional forms of provision".
There is not a single organisation or individual who has experience of direct payment schemes who does not believe that they must be the way forward in the development of independent living for disabled people. The case is overwhelming and the time will come when the necessary empowerment will be put in place. I should rather like it to be this Government which make that empowerment sooner rather than later. That would give a clear message to disabled people that when the Government talk about empowerment, they mean choice, independence and freedom from the shackles of bureaucracy. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McColl of Dulwich.)
8.24 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, not only noble Lords but disabled people generally will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for his
1646
initiative in bringing the proposal before your Lordships' House. I hope that before the debate is finished, those who like me warmly support the proposal will have persuaded the Government that they too should be grateful to the noble Lord for the initiative.
He has established beyond question the desirability of the proposal in terms of benefits to disabled people; the enlargement of their choice and their control; the enhancement of their dignity; and the benefits to carers—both professional and family carers. Experience under the Independent Living Fund has shown how direct payments enormously improve the relationship between disabled persons and their carers. There are benefits too to the Government, and to the taxpayer, if you like. As the noble Lord pointed out, more disabled people in that situation are able to earn and to pay taxes.
Research and experience have shown that local expenditure in this way is more cost effective. The Kingston research and research by the ADSS has demonstrated that. Therefore I should have thought that the desirability of the proposal would be common ground between the Government Front Bench and the remainder of the House. Indeed, as the noble Lord reminded us, Ministers have recognised that common ground. The noble Lord also stated that the proposal was very much in line with Government and Conservative thinking. I hope that my noble friends will not think less of the proposal for that, in particular in the light of the wide range of supporting opinion of disabled persons' organizations—the ADSS, district councils, the Audit Commission, and so on—to which the noble Lord drew our attention.
With regard to desirability there is no further case to argue beyond that which the noble Lord has argued already. If there were an issue, it turns on the question of practicability. When one considers the range of organisations which support the Bill, one wonders who is opposed to it. Who is opposed to this universally acclaimed proposal? Frankly, the only body that I have been able to find is the Treasury on the grounds of practicability. So far as I can understand, the Treasury has used three arguments to which the noble Lord adverted. I wish to concentrate on those.
First, the Treasury argues that there is a distinction between social service provision for local authorities on the one hand and social security payments for the DSS on the other. But what is the basis of that distinction? At the most, it is a historical convention stemming from the 1948 Act and time moves on. It is a convention which is,
"More honoured in the breach than in the observance".
I hope that I use that quotation in the true sense in which Hamlet used it. The convention has been breached in principle by the availability of local authority payments under the Children Act 1989 to children and families. It has been breached in Scotland by payments by local authorities under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, to say nothing of the local authority payments, before the Treasury discovered

1647
them and ruled that they were illegal. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, documented so well, we know the excellent results of those activities by local authorities.
If that distinction on which we are told the Treasury makes its judgment ever were valid, the wall of principle has long crumbled and it is time that it should now be demolished.
The second argument which apparently the Treasury uses is that it is difficult to decide who should be given the cash payments and who should receive services and that it is difficult to control and administer them. As the noble Lord told us, the basic assessment by local authorities will establish what the needs of the individual are. Thereafter, we suggest that it should be open to the disabled person to opt for cash rather than services in kind, unless he or she is manifestly incapable of doing so. Some people may not be able to do that; some may well not want to. But if they opt for payments, then thereafter they can be made fully accountable, as experience has shown under the Independent Living Fund and in schemes run so far by local authorities. If there is evidence that the person cannot cope or is abusing the scheme, the answer is simple: the payments will be stopped.
However, what I find worrying is that underneath that general attitude and argument appears to be the belief that disabled people cannot cope. Insisting that disabled people must have their support services provided for them by local authorities or by other providing agencies, as opposed to giving them the cash equivalent to buy in the services for themselves, is as little defensible as a decision that people over the age of 70 should not receive their pensions in cash but should be issued instead with tickets for clothing, heating and groceries.
The Treasury's third objection, to which the noble Lord adverted, is that the cash payments would escalate. It reminds us of what happened in the case of the Independent Living Fund. Cash payments escalated, as needs were discovered which no one had previously guessed at. However, as the noble Lord said, this situation is completely different. The cost will be based on assessments; and whether the money is spent in providing services or is paid in cash form, it will be nearly the same with two possible qualifications. First, to the extent that payments enable disabled people to work—and it is shown that in some cases it enables them for the first time to work—then they will pay taxes. Secondly, to the extent that the system is more effective than direct provision at keeping people out of institutional care—and experience shows that is so—then it must reduce the cost to the local authority or the cost to the state.
Therefore the proposal on balance can only save money. It cannot cost more than direct provision. Thus, the taxpayer —nationally, locally or both—would receive a benefit from the Bill. However, I conclude on the point that the fact that the taxpayer would benefit should not be the reason for adopting the proposal. That would be doing the right thing for the wrong reason. We should adopt it because it would enable disabled people to control their own lives. That is right for them, as it is right for all of us.
8.35 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I wish to give a very warm welcome and wholehearted support to this small Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has given such a clear, convincing and comprehensive introduction. It is a small Bill but it will make an enormous difference to the lives of some severely disabled people. It is an issue in which I have been involved for some time, but I shall not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said about how we started with high hopes, with Ministers being helpful and hoping that they would be able to change the law with an amendment, to the time when the department issued its guidance. It said that those people who were already receiving direct cash payments were in an illegal situation.
We have taken several steps backwards and it is essential that we now move forward. The noble Lord's Bill gives us an opportunity to sort out the unsatisfactory and muddled situation by empowering, not obliging, local authorities to make direct payments to those very severely disabled people who choose to take over the management of that aspect of their lives. As the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, it is not everyone who will wish to do that.
There is no doubt whatever about the value of direct payments and the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has already quoted several Ministers in favour of them. I wish to add two quotes. In the debate on the Independent Living Fund on 7th March 1991, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
"the fund … has been a success not least because it has addressed a real need in the community in giving disabled people the opportunity to exercise control over their lives rather than having to submit to choices made on their behalf by experts. It allows individuals largely to choose the nature and extent of the care that they need in order to remain in their homes".—[Official Report, 7/3/91; col. 1504.]
Again, the Minister for Disabled People, when announcing the changes in the Independent Living Fund in November 1992, said:
"The new fund … ensures the continuation of one of the most significant features of the ILF—an element of cash payments to individual disabled people to enable them to control provision of … their care".
However, unless local authorities are empowered to make direct payments, this "element of cash" will have little significance for most disabled people because of the proposed arrangements for the ILF, now to be the Independent Living (1993) Fund. The new arrangements have, I believe, broadened the need for direct payments and added weight to the arguments. I think that it is a new element. Before starting on the new element, I wish totally to support what the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, in all his arguments that rebutted the Treasury's objections.
Under the proposed arrangements for the ILF, new claimants will look to the local authorities for the first £200 worth of provision which will be in services. Above that, they may apply for up to £300 from the ILF, making £500 in all. The Government's figures show that about 1,500 people will qualify, as opposed to about 6,500 now who receive direct cash payments from the ILF.
For most of those people the ILF money, cash, will only be a small part of their total care package. The

1649
Spinal Injuries Association reckons that its average care package is worth £300 in all, so it would mean that under the new arrangements £200 worth would be in local authority care and only £100 in cash. That is one-third of the package. I think we can take it that SIA members are among the most severely disabled people, so that most eligible recipients will receive a good deal less; a smaller percentage of cash in the package. It will therefore be impossible to control and design arrangements of care with just one-third cash element and the rest in services.
The Association of Directors of Social Services, the AMA and the ACC have said that it will lead to muddled personal assistance provision. They have called on the Government to empower local authorities to make direct cash payments. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has already given examples and quotes of the difference that direct cash payments have made to people's lives. I am sure that others will give more so I shall say no more on that, except that people do seem to be healthier and happier. What the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said is very interesting. It is stressful to have a lot of different people coming in and out of your home and doing things to you. The noble Lord spoke of the highly personal nature of this care. I do not think that we should mince around with euphemisms. In the case of tetraplegics we are talking about catheterisation and manual evacuation of the bowel. I think that you should be allowed to choose who invades your body.
Surely this is the answer to the worry about whether recipients will misuse the cash and spend it all on gin, or lie in bed all day. If they did, they would very soon be very ill. They would get pressure sores and urinary tract infections. They would suffer renal failure and would have a very nasty death. So most of all, it is about freedom to do the things that most people take totally for granted: to get up or go to bed when one wants to, to go on holiday or to a conference, or whatever.
When the Member of another place, Andrew Rowe, who has doggedly pursued this issue from the first, went a year or two ago to argue the case with Mrs. Bottomley, he very kindly took me, together with some advisers and a number of very severely disabled people. The only reason why one of the tetraplegics was able to be flexible and rearrange his life to travel down from the North, to stay overnight and to explain the situation to Mrs. Bottomley, was precisely because he was receiving direct cash payments. Otherwise he could not have come here to argue the case. It is illegal.
So the case for direct payments is compelling in its own right. I believe that the new ILF arrangements that are going ahead make it all the more important that it is implemented alongside the new arrangements. Direct cash payments are acknowledged to be the cornerstone of independent living. I urge the Minister to respond positively to this small but crucial Bill and not only give it a Second Reading but wish it well and assist its passage.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, this short but eminently sensible Bill has my full support. My noble friend Lord McColl is to be congratulated on introducing it to the House. I trust that my noble friend the Minister, and the Government in general, will assist its speedy passage through both Houses of Parliament. I can see no reason why not, as it is entirely consistent with the aims of the Government as set out in paragraph 1.8 of their White Paper Caring for People, as giving people a greater individual say in how they live their lives and on the services they need to help them do so.
The principle behind the Bill is already enshrined in law. The Government already make direct payments through the Independent Living Fund and by way of social security payments. Under the Social Services (Scotland) Act children are entitled to receive cash and to make their own arrangements. Also, under the Children Act, local authorities may make direct payments to children and young people. The precedent is already in place. This Bill provides enabling powers; it is not compulsory. The Government appear to trust children and able-bodied people who are in receipt of social security payments. Why do they not trust those who have the misfortune to suffer from a physical disability? I wonder whether, when she responds to the debate, the Minister will answer that direct question. I think it is important.
No additional funding is required under the proposals set out in the Bill. Indeed, as others have already said, it may well reduce costs by cutting out some of the inevitable overheads of local authorities. Giving individuals control over a sum of money will in most cases mean more cost-effectivness in its use.
A few local authorities already pass cash to voluntary organisations for the needs of particular disabled people, after having assessed those needs. The voluntary organisations have to make a small additional charge to cover their costs. The Bill will obviate that requirement and so save money.
I understand that the new Independent Living Fund, as already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), is already arranged so that the first £200 a week of assistance to the disabled recipient must be in the form of services—services that the local authority are prepared to provide, not necessarily those that the client disabled person sees as most beneficial to his or her needs. However, the balance of benefit to the disabled client may be in the form of cash. That seems to me to be very muddled thinking.
An example of the wisdom behind the Bill is contained in a letter that I received recently. With the permission of the House, I shall quote from it:
"I have a friend who is totally paralysed and can only move her electric wheelchair with a suck-blow device and controls her environment by Possum equipment. Her husband died suddenly and her sons have now married. I was at a case conference with the Social Services and Nursing Services. The Nursing Officer said that it was costing £70 or more each evening when a nurse and an assistant had to come in to put Margaret to bed and deal with her toilet needs, although it took less than twenty minutes. This in addition to all the other elements of care that Margaret needs during the day.

1651
Margaret was granted funds from the ILF and now has two Scandinavian girls living in who not only deal with all her care needs but also take her out, prepare her meals and do some of the light housework. Her life style is vastly improved and she is much happier and more confident".
I have done a few calculations. The letter quoted a cost of £70 each evening. After making inquiries, I elicited the information that each of the two girls who were employed by Margaret are paid £70 a week. That produces a saving of £350 a week, or £18,200 a year. Totalled with the many other people to whom the same or similar could apply, that will mean quite a large fund.
Arrangements made directly between the disabled person and the carers are far more flexible, as has already been said, and allow a much better quality of life to the disabled person. The Bill, once passed, will allow the disabled person to choose his or her own carers rather than have to accept those provided by the local authority.
Carers often have to perform extremely personal care for the disabled client. It can be most embarrassing for both people, particularly if the relationship is not good. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) has already mentioned that point. It will be much more difficult to arrange to change an unsuitable carer if all the carers are provided for a particular disabled person by the local authority. If the individual disabled person has a grant to spend and can choose his or her own carers, it will provide greater privacy and a more comfortable situation.
I should like to leave noble Lords with one last thought. Let us take a situation where a disabled person—we can call that person Hilary, Francis or Phil, all names that may refer either to men or women, and there are many other similar names—needs to be bathed and toileted, and the regular cover is suddenly taken ill. It is late on a Friday evening and a replacement has to be found quickly. The social services department is about to close down for the weekend, and the local authority clerk on duty does not necessarily know whether that replacement should be male or female. If the disabled person is given a grant and makes his or her own arrangements, that difficulty would not arise. I support the Bill.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I should like to offer my very warm congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, not only on bringing forward this important subject but also on his excellent and comprehensive presentation of the case. I am almost sorry that he did it so well because he has left us with nothing to say except to put in the odd comma, the random dash and possibly the occasional PS. It was a splendid speech. He has the reputation for being a fine doctor. I can only conclude that he may be wasting his time in medicine. Being able to deploy a case as he did, he should be a full-time politician. We are all grateful to him for the case he presented.
I should also like to congratulate Fidelity Simpson who is the adviser to the Spinal Injuries Association. She has provided many noble Lords with splendid briefs. After reading her briefings, there is no excuse
1652
for anyone not to speak like Demosthenes or Pericles. We should all speak at such an elevated standard that we should want to be here all night.
For me this is basically a simple issue. I shall listen with very great care to the noble Baroness who will wind up for the Government. As never before this is almost a yes and no case. The present position—the illegality of local authorities making cash payments—is an unjust anachronism. There is absolutely no justification whatever for it. It simply has to be removed because it denies to disabled people the cash that they need to control their own lives. It is as simple as that. It is a black and white issue. In my 26 years in the other place I have come across very few issues that have been so black and white and this is one of them. To deny this change is to deny to the most vulnerable in our society the freedom and independence which is most crucial.
We all know that there are some very good local authorities. We also know that there are some appalling local authorities. But whatever the local authority, its provision is bound to be patchy. Even where it is good, the provision will not be what disabled people want because their preference is for cash. Those who apply want to have cash for the services. That has been amply demonstrated.
I was very struck by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). Those with personal experience of having to ask for things, being concerned about people coming into their homes and dealing with their bodies and coming in at different hours—they are the people who know. People who are severely disabled should not have to beg and plead and negotiate. They should be able to say what they want. They can only say what they want when they pay for it. That makes them masters of the situation and gives them the freedom that we all have. That is why, in my view, this change is absolutely unchallengable.
The noble Baroness who is to reply on behalf of the Government will no doubt have spoken to Mr. Andrew Rowe who has been active in another place. Mr. Andrew Rowe deserves great credit for having introduced a similar measure in another place. He is no extremist. He is known as a moderate Member of Parliament and a very loyal supporter of the Government. Yet he has criticised the Government as "stubborn" for their refusal to support change and has warned of a "bureaucratic nightmare". Those are strong words from a loyal government supporter. I hope that the noble Baroness will take them on board. I also hope that Conservative Members of this House, including Ministers, will endorse Mr. Andrew Rowe's views and press the Government to support the Bill.
I had a very impressive list of arguments against the objections put forward by the Treasury. However, they have already been raised by various noble Lords and there is no point in my repeating them. With regard to accountability, it is quite nonsensical to argue that, if disabled people are given the cash, it is difficult to make them accountable. That is absolute nonsense. There was no problem with the 22,000 payments made from the ILF up to March this year. The simplest and most reliable system of all can be

1653
used; namely, payments made into separate bank accounts with full access by the local authority to all the bills. There is no question there about accountability. It is total accountability.
The distinction between the social services providing services and social security providing cash has already been dealt with very adequately indeed, especially with regard to the precedents of the Children Act and the Social Work (Scotland) Act. It is absurd to equate with the ILF the increase from £1 million with which it began to £100 million in 1993. No comparison at all can be made with what this system will be when the Bill is enacted—enacted it will be sooner or later, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said—because we ask for cash instead of services. That is all. We do not ask for more cash and we do not ask for new money.
I conclude on this point. If the Minister who is shortly to reply, after hearing some more brilliant speeches no doubt, has any doubt about the value of the Bill, I suggest that she heeds the words of disabled people themselves. The people who have been supporting this Bill are powerful organisations such as the Association of Municipal Authorities, the Association of County Councils, the Association of Directors of Social Services and the BMA. But the most important people of all are disabled people—those who are suffering and have practical experience. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), spoke tonight with very great authority. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will also speak with similar authority. What really counts is what disabled people want—not what Ministers or the Treasury want.
I commend to the Minister the words of a lady called Jane Campbell, who is herself very seriously disabled. She attended a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and others who support the Bill. I hope that she is not blushing now. Her words are far more eloquent than any that I can use. She said:
"Employing your own personal care assistants places negotiation on a different plane. You are not asking for favours or desperately attempting to change the (statutory) home carers rota so as to enjoy another hour at that party. Instead you are setting your schedule for the day which you know will be adhered to by your employee, with whom you have agreed a one to one contract of employment".
That was the nub of the problem. But then Jane goes on to say:
"Whereas my traditional form of help gave me no privacy and was often loaded with what people thought was 'best for me', I now decide my routines and I feel I have an equal say in how my home and my family life is run. This is, I believe, fundamental to one's dignity and sense of belonging and contributing".
No one could put it better than that. There are many more wonderful sentences in that letter but I have spoken long enough. I want to commend to the Minister this splendid change, admirably proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McColl.
My final message to the Minister is this. Quite a number of us think a great deal of her personally and in her capacity as a Minister. I know that she cannot create policy. She is to some extent governed by the Treasury. But the job of a Minister is to argue with the Treasury and win. I hope that the message she takes
1654
back tonight is that every speaker in the debate is pressing very strongly—and presumably those who follow will take the same line—in support of the Bill. That is a very powerful message for the Minister to take to the Secretary of State and to the Treasury.
9 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich. I am not at all surprised by his clarity of presentation. He is a professor of surgery. I hope very much that he will be able to make a clear incision in the Treasury's thinking over this Bill.
So many changes have occurred in recent months, with the merging of certain benefits, the changing of the names of benefits and the complicated, long forms which disabled people or their representatives have had to fill in, that many people are now confused. This Bill, as far as I can make out, would cut out some administration and therefore be cost-effective. The people affected by the Bill will be severely disabled and will all have been assessed by their local authorities and therefore will be well known. They will only be the people who want to be responsible and are able to control their own lives.
I should like to give a few examples of the problems that severely disabled people have to endure. A person paralysed from the neck down, without use in his or her arms, will not be able to do their own bowel evacuation, as was said by my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth). The bowel has a very delicate lining and rough handling can damage it. There could also be a problem of infection. The tetraplegic—the person paralysed from the neck down—has to have confidence in the person who performs the evacuation. They need to be compatible. These helpers are people coming in to the disabled person's private home. They must also be honest. Unless there is mutual acceptance of each other, you can imagine the breakdown of trust and understanding. This is a very personal matter, as has been said by several noble Lords.
The Independent on 1st April had an article about a woman who had been left paralysed when a drunken driver crashed into her car 19 years ago. Mrs. Dibdin had to stop teaching physics, stay at home and learn the humiliating realities of local authority care. She said:
"The home help came to me one day when my bed was wet and I asked her to change the sheets. She refused. She said, 'Today is not the day we change the bed linen'. I asked if she expected me to go to sleep in a wet bed. She said, 'Well, I'm not changing it'".
So often disabled people have to wait for strangers to bathe them, shave them, feed them and do all kinds of intimate tasks. If disabled people can hire their own help they can then organise the times to suit their own timetable and maybe that of a husband and children. As has been said so many times, a severely disabled person can mean a severely disabled family.
Even if organisations of, or for, disabled people administer the benefits for disabled people on behalf of local authorities, some of the money will be lost on administration. The fewer people involved, the better it is for the taxpayer whose money it is. The Government have approved care in the community. I

1655
agree that there should always be monitoring to see that money goes where it should go and is not wasted. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says because I am a taxpayer. But I also know what indignities some disabled people have to put up with.
The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is the Minister for AIDS. Some people who will benefit from the Bill will be suffering from AIDS and in the last stages of the illnesses. The Bill, giving direct payments to clients, would help solve the difficult problem of confidentiality.
I hope that the Minister, who is more understanding of these problems than many people in government, will consider what has been said tonight and will have discussions with her ministerial colleagues, especially those from the Treasury.
9.6 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, like every other speaker I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. I support everything that has been said by every noble Lord so far for many reasons, three of them specific. First, I believe that the Bill will enable disabled people to take greater control of their lives, thereby retaining human dignity. Secondly, the Bill will help remove the heightened level of anxiety which occurs when routine changes. Thirdly, the Bill will permit the establishment of ongoing relationships between carer and patient, which are so essential. I shall deal with each of those matters in turn, make two specific points on the Bill and, finally, make an observation on the future provisions for helping a probably increasing number of disabled people in the population.
My knowledge of the subject is nothing like as wide as that of some of the other speakers in the debate. It is, however, based on first-hand personal experience of being responsible for ensuring that the greatest possible amount of dignity, self-respect and confidence is maintained by a stroke victim who, although categorised as disabled, is still a whole, live, intelligent human being with deep emotional feelings and immensely strong awareness, yet unable to communicate other than by facial expression or gestures with the left hand. Disabled yes, but his needs and wants are quite different from those of many other disabled people.
As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, reminded us, Alan Howarth, in another place said:
"We should see support for independent living as, above all, a moral imperative. In a great many cases disability is less a function of physical impairment than a failure by us —family, friends, professionals, society and politicians acting on its behalf—to do as much as we can to enable the physically impaired person to take control of his or her life and to take his or her full place in society".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/93; col. 62.]
The Bill deals with "certain severely disabled persons". Sadly, "disabled" is a catch-all term. It is a collective noun of enormously diverse constituent parts. There is a danger of seeking a lowest common denominator solution to an immensely complex problem. The needs and wants of the individual disabled person are as varied as the needs and wants of the individual, able-bodied person. I am sure that practically each Member of your Lordships' House has needs and wants that are quite different from those
1656
of anybody else's needs and wants. I believe that this Bill provides for meeting the individual needs and wants of the disabled much better than is proposed under the withdrawal of the current situation.
I return to the human dignity aspect. If we can imagine it, let us put ourselves in the body of a person with MS. He suffers the indignity of all questions being addressed through a third person rather like the BBC Radio 4 programme, "Does He Take Sugar?" Under this Bill such a person could employ a person to help and care for him and establish at the outset that MS does not actually mean that he cannot take his own decisions.
Why do people raise their voices when speaking to a stroke victim? Just because a person cannot speak does not mean that his or her hearing is impaired. Under this Bill a stroke victim could employ a person for help and care and establish once and for all that deafness is not a problem rather than having to do it constantly when changing carers or helpers.
Why do we assume that the local authority support services know best when a patient should have his daily bath? As an aside, not all physically disabled people wish to be addressed on first name terms by somebody half their age. Informality is fine but sometimes patients should decide whether or not they are to be addressed in such a manner. It may not seem a major point. Again, it is the human dignity point and one that could be accommodated much more satisfactorily under this Bill.
A stroke victim who has exceptional organisational skills before the stroke does not necessarily lose those skills. Why not allow them to continue to use those skills by organising their own care and health? This Bill would permit that.
The second of my three points was the removal of the anxiety. So often, when a tragedy such as a stroke occurs, there is a massively heightened fear that something else might happen. Time, and the passing of time, become an obsession. If the help or the care does not arrive at exactly the time expected, serious concern, leading almost to a physical deterioration, can occur. If the patient calls the shots, so to speak —in other words, employs the carer or helper directly —the terms and conditions of employment can be agreed and, if not adhered to, as has been pointed out, another helper or carer can be substituted. In my experience, continuity of care with a consistent pattern of timed functions leads to a better situation both for the patient and for the carer. Again, this Bill would provide for that.
The third point which I mentioned is the establishment of relationships. Again, in my experience it sometimes takes a very long time to establish an efficient caring regime, particularly if the patient is a severe dysphasic case. People with communications difficulties present particular problems but problems which, over a period of time, can be understood, albeit imperfectly at times. That type of relationship needs endless patience and certainly requires a continuity of carer; otherwise serious misunderstandings can and do occur. The patient needs to be assisted by someone who is psychologically prepared to invest time in the comprehension process. That can only be achieved by

1657
choice and agreement—not by the allocation of a carer to a patient. Again, under the Bill, this situation would be helped immensely.
I turn now to specific points raised by the Bill. We are told that there is concern that if moneys were paid direct to patients, there could be a temptation to take the money and not spend it on the provision of help or care. Surely, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, that concern could be overcome by the operation of separate bank accounts which would be open to inspection by the local authority. That point should be rigorously pursued. As a part-time banker, I cannot see any reason why it should not work.
However, I have a worry that subsection (3) (c) might prove to be a problem. It states:
"A person covered by this subsection must … have signified to the local authority concerned his consent in writing".
Again, drawing on my personal experience, not every person who is disabled can write. Certain stroke victims who are completely competent to stay in their own homes, provided they have help, are unable to compose words and even unable to hold a pen. I am sure that the clause could be amended to permit those ultimately responsible for the patient (be that husband, wife, son, daughter or maybe the family solicitor) to signify the consent of the patient "in writing". It is a minor point, but I think that it is fairly important.
Exceedingly worthwhile points have been made this evening—points that all of us should take on board. I am sure that the Minister is doing just that. Our general level of knowledge of the needs and wants of the disabled is uneven at best and, indeed, worrying at worst. With the possibility of an increasing ageing population, we are likely to have an ever-increasing number of disabled people. These people have every right to as good a life as possible and we must be aware of our responsibilities in this area.
Our responsibility as a nation is not necessarily to provide more nursing homes; it is to ensure that as many people as possible can live in their own homes, surrounded by their well-loved possessions, and be given the dignity of ultimately being responsible for themselves for as long as possible.
I fear that our attitude towards this situation is often one of fire-fighting rather than fire prevention. Have we really thought through the financial implications of an ever-increasing number of disabled? How many cases are there of disabled people being put in nursing homes, financed by the Government and local authorities, when if even half the amount of what it costs to fund such a transfer were paid direct to the patients, they could stay in their own homes and buy their own care and help services?
There are also many people who put themselves in a difficult financial situation by providing live-in care for a disabled person because they want their loved one to stay at home for as long as possible. Other European Community countries have a more enlightened approach and permit such payments to be offset against tax. Perhaps that is something that we
1658
should consider in the longer term. As I said at the beginning, I welcome this Bill. I wholeheartedly support it. I hope that the Government will also.
9.17 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as has been said, the Bill has received so much support tonight from all sides of the House that it is hard to find a voice or argument against it.
We have also heard the voice of the clients—of the disabled themselves. As one young woman said who briefed us only a short while ago—I hope that she will allow me to quote her:
"Direct payments have turned my life around".
At core, that meant that services were fitted to her needs rather than she being fitted to the needs of the service. It meant that she could hold down a full-time job as a training director travelling to workshops across the country. She said that she had discovered for the first time what is meant by "spontaneity"—the ability to stay on at a party or to go out on the spur of the moment without having to negotiate with the statutory providers whether it was convenient for her to do so. It meant that she could take on wider obligations and, for example, become involved with voluntary groups. Another disabled woman (middle-aged and with her own helpers) could, for the first time, care for her 80 year-old frail mother. Therefore there is a sense that disabled people can contribute back to the community as fully as in the past they have been dependent on it.
The new provisions mean also that, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said, disabled people can be confident that their intimate medical history and details of their life are known only to those whom they choose should know them—those employed—rather than the large, inevitably rather random succession of people coming from the local authority and offering different aspects of care but backstopping for holidays, sick problems and maternity leave.
As one young disabled man said, "Social services can send you anyone they like, whether you like them or not. I get worn out by it". A disabled person employing his own personal assistants means that he has control over their tasks and functions. It means that we can offer flexibility. They can do a wide range of tasks. They can interlock with informal and unpaid caring and not have the inevitable demarcation of tasks associated with statutory services: here a putter to bed; there a district nurse; and here a home help; and there meals on wheels.
Above all, the Bill would permit autonomy. "If someone else employs the help for you", said another disabled woman, "it is like turning your own home into a residential home". "But with direct payments", said a young woman called Maria, "it means that I can get up in the morning when I want to; go to bed in the evening when I want to; go out when I want to; and lead the kind of life that I want". Those are all things that we take for granted, and for which disabled people depend upon others to help with. Maria added that to her friends, it meant, "I am me, rather than someone who needs help".

1659
There is Catherine, who was quoted by the Rowntree Trust. She was told that she could have mobility help from social services in the 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. slot. It was not whether she wanted or needed it, that was what the department could provide. As another ILF client said, "If you are paying for it, you can get what you want".
I speak as someone who was, for a number of years, on a county council social services committee. It is inevitable that if one is employing staff to put people to bed, some people have to be put to bed at 8.30 p.m. Not everyone can be put to bed at 11 o'clock, even if that is their choice. That is the way one has to organise a statutory service efficiently. None of us would want that for ourselves; we should not want it for the disabled.
We can understand therefore that disabled people, especially those with spinal injuries, should want the power represented by the Bill; but, presumably, it is resisted by the local authorities. After all, it is their money. Do they not want the close control that services in kind permit? Are not local authorities so committed to bureaucracy that they are reluctant to see this diffusion and dispersal of power? On the contrary, once professional assessments have been made, and efficient accounting arrangements are put in place, local authorities much prefer to be able to offer direct payments where appropriate rather than services in kind.
As one director of social services is quoted as saying in the ILF's recent report, direct payment allows, "personal brokerage". Another county director of social services said that forbidding payments in cash was:
"a backward step away from self-care management".
Why do local authorities support the proposal? It reduces bureaucracy and dependency. Social services directors are the first to be uncomfortable with requiring disabled people to wait in line for their getting up and their going to bed when there are better ways of doing it. Noble Lords made the point eloquently that there are also directors of social services who are rightly influenced by considerations of cost.
We were told by the director of Kingston social services, which like other local authorities had got around the problem by setting up a trust, that he estimates that in Kingston and Greenwich it would cost about £55,000 a year to support eight severely disabled people in the community, but it would cost 10 times that to support them in residential care.
Even if those disabled people were not in residential care, services in kind, handled by expensive professional social work staff, inevitably carry additional costs. I was talking to social worker friends at the weekend. A typical social worker, specialising in disabled clients, might have a caseload of 30 to 50 such clients. Her time, at £25 to £30 an hour, is spent supervising half a dozen accounts: the getting-to-bed accounts; the home help accounts; the laundry service accounts; the day care accounts; the taxi accounts, all of which a disabled person requiring 20 hours help a week might need. That, she calculated, would add £20 to £30 per week to a service bill of £100.
1660
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, forcefully made the point that all research shows that it is up to 50 per cent. cheaper to allow disabled people to administer their needs for themselves and to have the services that they want rather than the services that they are told they need. Can they cope? Usually, yes, they can. But if not, one can devise an imaginative new scheme such as that which Norwich has set up. It is the independent living project within a trust fund financed by Norfolk social services. It will help up to 40 severely disabled people to handle their own accounts, to employ their own staff and to become skilled in financial advocacy.
This comes with the support of the director of social services; it comes with the support of the BMA; it comes with the support of the British Association of Social Workers; it comes with the support of the Audit Commission; and it comes with the support of the local authority associations. As was said tonight by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), the sad demise of the old independent living fund, and the still questionable arrangements for its successor funds, makes local authority direct cash payments even more desirable so that ILF and local authority resources can be most effectively integrated.
So where does the opposition come from? Clearly, the disabled want the legislation as do the professional and local authority organisations. Does the opposition come from the Government? As was said by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, Mrs. Bottomley has made it clear in debates on the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 that this was an innovative but in the right circumstances a valuable approach. She indicated that the basic commitment is there. But so far it is not.
So where is the hostility to the legislation coming from? Tonight noble Lords have fingered the Treasury. After talking with colleagues, as one does, I realise that they must be right. Apparently the Treasury are arguing that since the National Assistance Act 1948 local authorities provide services and the DSS provides cash and to transgress those boundaries is improper. That is all very well except that the boundaries are transgressed whenever it is thought convenient by the Treasury to do so. Noble Lords have given many examples but perhaps I may give a few more. Children leaving the care of local authorities can receive one-off payments from local authorities. Health authorities regularly make direct payments. Local authorities regularly give cash to a range of voluntary organisations which help disadvantaged and disabled people. Above all, every week of the year local authorities make cash payments to foster-parents for the care of children without any of the apparent anxieties about gambling, spending sprees, and so forth, about which we have heard from the Treasury.
The second argument which the Treasury appear to be employing is that of accountability. Is it really believed that disabled people who have the greatest interest in seeing that the money is spent wisely will be profligate and casual with it? After all, as my noble friend Lord Ashley rightly said, it is simple to set up ring-fenced bank accounts together with a dipstick monthly check of time sheets, pay slips and tax forms.

1661
In 1990 RADAR's survey showed that of the 65 local authorities which responded, two thirds were making payments directly or indirectly to disabled people. But because of the Government's, so far, folly most of them were having unnecessarily to launder—and I use the word advisedly—that at extra cost and extra bureaucracy through a holding trust. That is daft.
I am still trying to puzzle out the Treasury arguments. I have come up with a third argument which is still more cynical and which has not been mentioned tonight. I fear that it may be another reason why the Treasury are resisting this move. It is that the Treasury believes that cash payments are more visible than services in kind. Therefore they would be harder to cut, alter, rearrange or withdraw than services. It is that degree of disability and the difficulty of constraining or cutting payments should needs change that the Treasury seems to believe that local authorities cannot cope with in their relationships with local people. I hope that the Minister can deny that that is the Treasury's view. If it is its view, it is extremely cynical. I hope that I am wrong.
Perhaps I may make some comments in case that is the Treasury's view. First, the number of people who might receive cash payments as opposed to services is quite small. For example, in my own city of Norwich there are about 12,500 disabled people in a population of about 120,000, or about one person in 100. Only one-tenth of those under the age of 65 are receiving home care. That is about 1,000. And only one in 10 of those—103 to be precise—are severely disabled and receiving help from the ILF. Therefore, the potential client base is quite small and defined. The Treasury's fears about the explosion of cost and the cash kind implications are not well founded when one considers the substantial budgets of local authority social services departments.
Secondly, I suspect that the group which is most likely to benefit may well be younger people with spinal injuries. As I understand it, their medical condition is not that likely to fluctuate. Their needs are not that likely to change. Therefore, the need for the local authorities to adjust the cash package is a fairly remote possibility. Certainly, I cannot conceive that the individual client would resist that were that adjustment necessary. In trying to gather information over the weekend and today, I discovered that of the half a dozen or so local authorities which make direct cash payments, none has had any problem if it has needed to adjust the cash payments in the light of changing circumstances. I have no information that the ILF has had any problems, either, in that regard. After all, at the end of the day we are talking about a power and not a duty. The local authorities are in the best position, in consultation with disabled people, to make those judgments.
I hope that if local authorities believe that direct payments may save money, as they do, and that they will immeasurably improve the quality of a few people's lives, which they will, then their professional and financial judgment should be respected.
As another client, Jack, said, "I am a husband, a father and a breadwinner and 10 years ago I was in an
1662
institution where I could not even decide when I would go to the toilet". Or, in the words—more effective than those which I could use —of Peter Large of the Disablement Income Group, "This Bill means the difference between a life in which most of your choices are made by others, and a life in which you can mostly choose for yourself". I commend the Bill to the House.
9.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the expertise and knowledge of your Lordships' House on this particular subject is recognised as being unparalleled. I should like to begin by thanking my noble friend Lord McColl for bringing this Bill before the House and allowing an informed and considered debate. My noble friend is extremely knowledgeable, having served as vice-chairman of the Disablement Services Authority as well as being closely involved in a number of organisations for disabled people.
For reasons that I shall outline later, I regret that the Government are unable to support the Bill this evening. I know that your Lordships will be deeply disappointed and I feel doubly sad because your Lordships have been so generous this evening. Perhaps this is the moment at which your Lordships should shoot the messenger. However, the Government's response will come as no surprise to my noble friend. I should like to pay a tribute to him and to the honourable Member for Mid Kent for their ingenuity in framing this Bill. It anticipates many of the objections which might have been raised against it—but alas, not quite all of them.
I must also thank other noble Lords who have brought weight and authority to this debate. Many, such as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and Lady Masham of Ilton, speak both with personal experience; other noble Lords, although not disabled, are closely involved with this subject and are energetic champions for the disablement lobby.
The effect of this Bill is to amend the National Assistance Act 1948. This was an important Act which laid a foundation for much of what survives today. However, since then we have seen a great change in attitudes to disability and disabled people.
Quite properly we have seen disabled people claiming rights for themselves: rights to live their lives independently and with dignity; rights to succeed or fail on their own merits, rather than on the basis of other people's perceptions of their abilities, or worse their disabilities; rights which others take for granted —for education, employment, leisure; or simply rights to live an ordinary life, in an ordinary setting shared with family and friends.
These rights have been won incrementally. Part of the credit must go to your Lordships' House, and to Members in another place, for forcing debate and bringing forward legislation which has helped move these issues forward.
No one could pretend that there are not more victories to be won. Society does not change that quickly. Even now there is a Private Member's Bill

1663
before another place, which seeks to ensure an end to discrimination. Again, though we disagree about the methods, I can assure your Lordships that the Government are in agreement with the aims of that Bill. Discrimination benefits no one. People have rights and those rights must not be ignored.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently published a report by Dr. Jenny Morris about people's experience of direct payments from the Independent Living Fund. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, picked some of the examples that she gave the House this evening from that research. The research found that some disabled people resented the attitude of some social service authorities which treated disabled people as recipients of charity. If disabled people feel this, then something is awry—not with the notion of statutory services, but with the way that they are delivered. The day of the passive recipient of care has passed. Services are there to serve. That means treating people as individuals with legitimate expectations of quality, rather than as lucky beneficiaries of public munificence.
Those are issues which the community care Act seeks to address. We fully support the aim of enabling disabled people to live independently and to exercise choice. We wish to give local authorities freedom and flexibility to meet those choices in innovative ways and to see disabled people placed at the centre of decision making.
The new Act is based on the conviction that people who are receiving care are entitled to say what support they would like, and that those views are given the weight that they deserve. Personal assessment, which is the bedrock of the reforms, must be a joint exercise carried out by equal partners.
Wider choice means increasing both the range of services, and the variety of organisations which supply those services. Authorities in England are obliged to spend the majority of their special transitional grant on services provided by other people. That should stimulate innovation and encourage agencies which are imaginative and willing to pioneer new approaches.
But the new arrangements for community care do not exist in a vacuum. Disabled people also have long-standing rights under the social security system. The Government have a good record on benefits. Spending has trebled over the past 14 years and currently stands at £14.9 billion. This year alone we plan to spend an extra £300 million over and above inflation, to help around 850,000 disabled people.
Currently, 149,000 people receive invalidity benefit. That is the major long-term benefit for people who are incapable of work. Moreover, 320,000 people receive the severe disablement allowance. That is more than twice the number who received it in 1978–79. Over 430,000 disability living allowance awards have been made and 235,000 people have gained from the introduction of the new rates. In 1992–93, 287,000 people received both components of DLA. When it is fully established, we expect 50,000 people to receive the disability working allowance at any one time.
The Independent Living Fund was set up in 1988 as an interim measure, pending introduction of the new
1664
community care arrangements. However, its success which was highlighted by your Lordships tonight has encouraged us to retain a fund to help those who are most severely disabled. The key strength of the ILF was that it could give cash, giving disabled people greater independence to determine how best to meet their own needs. It is right that that should be carried forward into the new arrangements.
The fund will operate in partnership with local authorities and will provide an additional option for the most severely disabled people. We expect that, each year, around 1,500 people will get a cash payment from the new fund as well as help from their local authority. Total funding for the new independent living arrangements—including the extension fund which will continue to help clients of the old ILF —is around £161 million. That is a massive increase from the expenditure of £1 million five years ago when the ILF started.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) suggested that the new ILF arrangements will mean that a smaller percentage of the package will be given in cash. Under the old ILF regime clients also received a mixture of services paid for by the local authority and cash from the fund. The new scheme shifts the balance of support but ensures that in future the two parts of the package are brought together so that the client receives a coherent package of care agreed jointly by the disabled person, the local authority and the new fund.
My noble friend Lord McColl, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and many other speakers spoke of the importance of people being able to choose their own personal care assistant to carry out what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, described as intimate tasks. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, also spoke movingly of the importance of human dignity.
Local authorities are free to contract with anyone for the provision of care, including individuals acting as personal assistants. When the care plan is drawn up between the disabled person, the local authority and the ILF we would expect the local authority to make sure that the disabled person had as great a say as possible as to who is to be employed to provide the care. There is no reason why a care assistant should not be personally chosen by the disabled person.
The Government are doing a great deal, both through reforms to social services provision and through the benefits system, to ensure that people receive the support and care they need to live independent and fulfilled lives. That is right and proper. But this support comes from two sources: local authority social services departments on the one hand and the social security system on the other. Both have important roles to play and to a great extent they work to the same end, supporting an individual in the community. However, they are different roles. I hope that that picks up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest. Social services departments arrange exactly that—services. The Benefits Agency provides cash benefits. It is the business of the social security system to provide cash to support individuals in need. It is not the business of

1665
local authorities. They are providers, enablers and facilitators of care services. It would be difficult for them to manage a general system of cash payments, including defining eligibility, and to carry out the necessary monitoring to keep control over public funds.
Social services authorities do not work like the social security system. The concept of simply trying to match a cash amount to a particular set of needs is at odds with the idea of a flexible response to individual circumstances. There is a real danger that all that would be achieved is the creation of a separate social security system within social services, with its accompanying rigidity. That in turn would restrict authorities' flexibility to meet local needs and their ability to obtain value for money for all the people they serve. The payment of cash to individuals is not a responsibility that we think it right to add to authorities' already very full agendas.
I hope I have made it quite clear, however, that we support the view that disabled people should not be passive recipients of care but should be in control of decisions about their lives. The new community care arrangements are designed to facilitate exactly that. There is no reason, for example, why disabled persons should not take on the day-to-day management of their carers if they wish to do so, or to help to choose them in the first place. Many already do this and it could quite easily be written into contracts with care providers.
My noble friends Lord McColl and Lord Swinfen and the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, argued that disabled people get better value for money from direct payments. I do not doubt that in individual cases disabled people may be able to use money more effectively than certain authorities, but we need to look not only at the particular but at the overall effects of making direct payments part of the social services system. In our view there is a risk that over time they will lead to a degree of inflexibility and will adversely affect authorities' ability to match their resources to all local needs, not just those of people receiving direct payments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), gave compelling and practical examples as to why direct payments mean independence. It is important to distinguish between direct payments and care in the community. Of course a disabled person who is supported to live in his or her own home is more independent than someone in residential care. But people can and do achieve that independence without the need for direct cash payments.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, mentioned direct payments in Scotland. Local authorities in Scotland do have a power to make cash payments, but it is a limited one. Cash payments may be made only in an emergency and where that would be cheaper than some other form of assistance or where aggravation of the individual's need would cause greater expense to the authority on a later occasion.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and Lady O'Cathain, asked why the
1666
Government do not trust disabled people. I am glad to be able to say that our disagreement with the Bill is not because we do not trust disabled people. There is no reason to think that disabled people should be any more or less capable as a cross-section of society than any other. If the Government held the belief ascribed to us, we would not have a range of benefits for disabled people nor the 1993 Independent Living Fund. We do not fear that disabled people would misuse direct payments. What we fear is rather that the introduction of regular, direct payments into the rest of the social services framework will tend to imbalance arrangements and make it more difficult for authorities to discharge their other functions.
There is a great deal of agreement between us this evening. Disabled people have a right to live the ordinary, straightforward, independent life that so many of us take for granted. They cannot, must not and will not be denied that fundamental right. I believe that we are at one in our objectives; we simply differ in our estimation of the most appropriate and practical means of achieving them. Our community care reforms are all about independence. They have only just begun and it will take some time for us to see all the benefits that they will bring, but those benefits will come and individuals will receive the coordinated, high quality and appropriate care they need, want and deserve.
9.47 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who have taken part in the debate tonight. The contributions have been absolutely splendid. I feel a little sad that the Treasury has taken such a bashing. Whatever their faults the staff of the Treasury are highly intelligent people and I am sure that they would not have made the mistake of thinking that the condition of severely disabled people improves very much. Therefore, I am sure that they would not take the cynical view that it would be difficult to change the amount of cash provided because of improvements in the condition of a disabled person.
I should also like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, who thanked those outside this Chamber who have made such a contribution. I am thinking particularly of Fidelity Simpson who has been a tremendous help in all our endeavours.
Finally, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Bicycling
9.48 p.m.
Lord Marlesfordrose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they propose to maximise the environmental, public health and cost benefits of bicycling as a means of personal transport in Britain.
The noble Lord said: My Lords I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

1667
When I put down this Question I did not realise that so many of your Lordships take an interest in cycling. Indeed, a number of other noble Lords who have been prevented by other engagements from being here tonight have expressed support to me for the cause of maximising the environmental, public health and cost benefits of bicycling.
I must report that there was some surprise and disappointment among the cycling community, which incidentally is most capably represented by the Cyclists' Public Affairs Group, that our own Transport Minister, my noble friend Lord Caithness, did not choose to reply to the debate.
However, unlike Lord Randolph Churchill, the Government have not forgotten Goschen. I have been able to reassure those outside the House that the decision that my noble friend, as a non-departmental Minister, should have been selected to reply underlines, I hope, the Government's recognition that bicycling is a wide-ranging issue which covers environmental, health and economic questions as well as transport. I have, of course, given my noble friend notice of many of the points that I intend to raise so that we may receive a comprehensive and satisfying reply.
I must, I fear, say at once that Britain's 15 million cyclists are not at present in a contented mood. They feel neglected, and even treated with contempt, by the Government. Indeed, I think that it would not be an exaggeration to say that their situation is not unlike that of disabled people 40 years ago. I suspect that some of us who are old enough to remember him wish that Ernest Marples, the last Minister of Transport who showed that he really cared about bicycles, were with us today.
That was 30 years ago. It was the time when Sir Colin Buchanan in his watershed report, Traffic in Towns, proposed as a fundamental principle the need to separate pedestrians from road traffic. I believe that the overriding need today is to separate bicycles from road vehicles. That is the only way in which the safety of both cyclists and motor vehicles can be improved. It is the only way in which the mutual antagonism between the two can be minimised. It is the means by which the greater use of bicycles can be achieved.
Few of our towns and cities were designed for either cycles or motor vehicles. Yet for years huge sums of taxpayers' money have been spent to redesign them for cars, often with catastrophic effects on the environment. When I refer to huge sums, that is what I mean. The one mile plus (1.8 kilometres) of road for the Limehouse link between Canary Wharf and the Isle of Dogs was contracted to cost £171 million. The latest estimate is £251 million. We all know that it is simply not possible to accommodate the free market demand for road traffic, especially private cars. Sooner or later we shall have to have road pricing.
Bicycles could have a huge role to play in reducing, or at least containing, traffic congestion. A large proportion of car journeys could be made by bicycle. In London 60 per cent. of cars carry only one person; 66 per cent. of car journeys are less than five miles, and 80 per cent. are less than four miles. In Amsterdam they have tried to accommodate the cycle, with great
1668
success. In Athens they have not. There are virtually none to be seen. I was there two weeks ago, and the traffic is a stinking disaster.
The evidence is that the Department of Transport has no proper plans to increase bicycle use. Do your Lordships realise that when traffic surveys are carried out the cyclists are not even counted? Can we believe wholeheartedly that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport understands the environmental contribution that cycling can bring? Only last week he was asked in another place to list his environmental plans and achievements. He mentioned catalytic converters. That is good. He promised another £15 million to encourage the use of buses. That is good too. I then eagerly scanned Hansard for Mr. MacGregor's reference to cycles. It was in vain. His next reference was—wait for it, my Lords—the production of The Wildflower Handbook. I fear that I was reminded of the immortal words of Harry Lime and the Swiss cuckoo clock!
Therefore, what can and should be done? Let me say that I do not advocate additional expenditure. I am recommending a modest shift in resources. Treasury, please note!
First, the Department of Transport specifications should be changed so that all new road schemes are designed to take account of the need and potential of bicycles. Secondly, I should like to make it mandatory to include cycling in all traffic surveys, if the results are to be used to persuade the Government to spend public money on new road schemes. Thirdly, I wish to increase the provision of cycle lanes, especially in towns. Inevitably, that must mean some re-allocation of space away from private cars. Bus lanes, which are normally shared with bicycles, are a good thing and there should be more of them. It would be cost effective to put cycle lanes down the left hand side of many one-way streets where car parking is at present allowed on both sides. I also believe that the Department of Transport should at least investigate a proposal which I made earlier for a cantilevered wooden cycle shelf along the Thames from Chiswick to Wapping.
Fourthly, I believe that there should be hollowed out cycle tracks along the sides of many urban underpasses which do not have them. It is relatively cheap, they do not need to be the full height of the underpass and there would be few structural problems. A barrier would protect the cyclists from the motor traffic.
Fifthly, let us try to convert more wide pavements to shared use with pedestrians. That is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, would have mentioned, had he been able to attend the debate. I am glad that the long awaited report from the Transport Research Laboratory, published last week, says that there is much scope for increased shared use. I would just like to quote the conclusions of the Transport Research Laboratory, the Ministry of Transport's own outfit:
"The extensive observations made during this project have disclosed no real factors that justify exclusion of cyclists from pedestrian areas and indicate that cycling can be more widely permitted without detriment to pedestrians. It is important not to exclude cyclists from pedestrian areas and force them

1669
to use dangerous alternative routes. There are a wide variety of appropriate and satisfactory solutions (in terms of design and regulation) the choice of which will vary from place to place, and depend on local circumstances".
Curiously, the Department of Transport does not seem to have made any effort to publicise that important and encouraging news.
Sixthly, in London, could we give the Director of Traffic the same responsibility for the 1,000 mile strategic cycle route network that he already has for the Red Routes? Incidentally, even the Government do not know how much of the strategic route has already been completed. The best private bet is that it is 125 miles and most of that already existed before the Government made the 1,000 mile target their own policy five years ago. At that rate, few of us will be around when the 1,000 miles is complete.
Seventhly, tying in with the earlier point, I think we should review the cycling policy in the Royal Parks. Eighthly, I must mention safety although I know that others will go into it in more detail. My noble friend Lady Brigstocke is sorry that she could not be here tonight but she is most anxious to know what the Government intend to do to protect school children. Ninthly, let there be appointed a senior official—by which I mean someone like an Under-Secretary, Grade 3—in the Department of Transport to an interdepartmental committee, with an outside chairman, to recommend to the Government improvements in facilities and safety for cyclists in towns. That would probably need to be followed by a cyclists' unit to implement the plans, rather as there is already a disability unit in the Department of Transport. Finally, let there be nominated a Minister to see that there is action over the next three years.
In conclusion, I must point out something that may—just may—have escaped Ministers. Cyclists have votes—I do not know how many, but let us cautiously assume that for one-in-five of the 15 million cyclists cycling really matters. That makes three million votes, which is of more than marginal importance in any general election.
I hope that the Opposition parties will produce cycling proposals which will set the pace for government action. I expect to hear more about them tonight. Obviously, I hope that my own party wins this particular race and, of course, I have total confidence in my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport. I wait to hear from my noble friend that the Government are under starter's orders.
10.00 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before I begin, I should like to ask your Lordships' forgiveness if I leave before the end of the debate. I have not been very well recently, though I am recovering now. Also, I was up until 3 a.m. taking part in the Committee stage of the Education Bill.
Noble Lords might have expected that I, as a doctor, would devote most of my contribution to the health aspects of cycling, both positive and negative. I shall not disappoint them. I put forward two additional claims to speak in this debate on the Unstarred Question. I am a cycling and a car-driving
1670
doctor, and, similarly, a cycling and car-driving Peer, when wearing the hat that allows me to speak in this House—not, I venture to add, that I ever attempt to cycle and drive simultaneously. I think that the health aspects of doing that would be somewhat catastrophic, both for myself and for other road and pavement users.
Measurable benefits to health result from regular moderate-to-vigorous exercise. They have recently been clearly spelt out in very well documented reports by the Royal College of Physicians and, before that, by the British Heart Foundation. There are plenty of other reports and papers which testify to that fact.
The health gains are particularly apparent in physiological measures which are relevant to arterial health and coronary heart disease, which is our number one killer. The effects are: a lowering of blood pressure; a lowering of low density cholesterol levels in the blood—that is, the cholesterol fraction associated with atheroma, which is the build-up of fatty plaques in the arterial wall that cause narrowing of the artery; an increase in high density cholesterol—the fraction of blood cholesterol that appears to mop up loose low density cholesterol and other factors which damage arterial walls, such as the latest villains called free radicals. I would not know which Peers in this House might be both free radicals and villains. It would perhaps not be appropriate to name them.
Regular exercise also helps people to lose weight, not merely through calories being used up in the exercise itself, but because the basal metabolic rate is increased even after the exercise is over. Weight is shifted from fat to muscle, giving a better physique and greater ease in daily tasks involving muscular effort. The body's insulin sensitivity is increased, thus resulting in less liability to late-onset (Type II) diabetes, itself a cause of arterial heart disease. There is also evidence that exercise is good for mental health. It leads to a greater sense of well being and relaxation.
All exercise is better than none, but it must be reasonably regular. Half an hour of fairly vigorous exercise three times weekly makes a measurable difference to health. By "vigorous" is meant: fast walking; serious swimming—not just going down the flume; jogging; rowing; competitive sport; sawing wood; shovelling earth; and, of course, cycling. There are numerous other ways of undertaking aerobic exercise, including dancing; but to do good they should make one slightly breathless and should double one's resting pulse rate.
The main advantage of cycling as an exercise is that it is partially non-weight bearing, so that it does not cause wear and tear on joints, unlike a number of other forms of exercise—I do not refer to swimming, which is, of course, par excellence the one for that.
The other main advantage of cycling is that it has uses other than simply for keeping fit. I am sure that, like the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, other noble Lords will point out that, far from taking up time, in fact it saves time. It is an activity which moves people around much faster than walking or running and it does not pollute the atmosphere, burn carbon, cost much or take up much space while doing so. It can be slotted into a day's work usefully and routinely.

1671
But there is the other side of the coin, which is the increasing danger of cycling not simply in cities but also on country lanes because of the relentless increase in motorised traffic and the speed with which it moves, especially on those country lanes. Although there has been an increase in cycle ownership in recent years—in 10 years it approximately doubled from 7.3 million in 1975 to 13.1 million in 1985–86, and the noble Lord has now given us the figure of 15 million—the proportion of all road travel by cyclists has decreased. The total number of kilometres travelled by bike has remained static. That is partly because of the cult of the car and increased car ownership but also because of the real dangers of cycling.
About 300 deaths and 30,000 serious injuries annually are suffered by cyclists in road accidents. The great majority of serious or fatal accidents is due to being hit by a motorised vehicle. I am sure that other noble Lords will take up that area of concern. The great majority of fatalities is due to head injuries, many of which could have been much less severe if the cyclist had been wearing a properly designed helmet. That again is no doubt a topic that other noble Lords will raise.
Having touched briefly on helmets, I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to answer to look at the possibility of exempting helmets from VAT, just as motorcycle crash helmets are exempt. The last time I raised that issue, I was told by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that it was a European-wide issue and we could not do it alone. Motorcyclists were exempt because they were VAT-exempt before the EC rules were imposed. I still feel that we should make a case for that tax to be lifted throughout the EC. Price is a major deterrent. Now at £25 to £50 a helmet, it is a substantial proportion of the whole cost of the bicycle.
What is the balance of advantage? There are the years lost owing to death versus the life-years gained from increased health, even with cycling safety as bad as it is now. At this point I should like to refer to the last chapter in Mayer-Hillman's book written for the BMA and entitled Cycling towards Health and Safety, published last year. In 1989 there were 293 cycling fatalities with a total loss of 11,324 life-years—that is, expected years of life which the victims might have had, had they not been killed. That is an average loss of some 39 years of life per victim, since most of those killed were quite young. In that year there were some 15 million cycle owners, but most distance was covered by quite a small proportion of that total.
If one were to take an extreme view and say that all the fatalities were concentrated in only 10 per cent. of
1672
users (purely for ease of calculation)—that 10 per cent. of users who use their cycles regularly and therefore in fact could gain the health benefit from cycling—it could be simply calculated that the life-years lost would represent only two days for each of the 1.5 million serious cyclists. That is an exaggeration of the risk because many of the deaths occur among cyclists who use their cycles only occasionally and are not therefore experienced in the risks and the care that has to be taken in riding a cycle in traffic conditions.
It is quite difficult to calculate life years gained as a result of health improvements due to cycling, but a helpful study is that of Dr. Paffenbarger, who followed up 17,000 graduates from Harvard over a very long period—up to 40 years—and found that there was a big difference in life expectancy between those who took very little exercise, those who took moderate exercise and those who took a lot of exercise. The study concluded that those who cycled 60 miles a week from the age of 35 could add two and a half years to their life expectancy. I have not had the opportunity to look at the paper since I prepared my speech. He could be referring to all people who took an equivalent amount of exercise to that amount of cycling. Nevertheless, let us say that, if that is the only exercise as compared with people who do not have exercise, such as people who travel habitually by car, they have two and a half years' extra life—two and a half years added to life in comparison with a risk equivalent to the loss of two days' life, or even less, from an accident in regular cyclists.
I would not like noble Lords to take this figure and bandy it about as a truth. It is a thumbnail calculation. Many more careful statistical studies need to be done, and doubtless have been done, but I am afraid that I have not had time to conduct a full literature search before preparing my speech. Nevertheless, I think it is clear that even in today's conditions the gain to health, though less visible, far outweighs the danger of death, unacceptable though that is.
I very much look forward to reading other noble Lords' contributions which I am sure will fill in the picture and to which the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, will reply. I hope that the Government realise that they are on to a potential winner. Cycling can help to achieve the targets put forward in The Health of the Nation for reducing coronary heart disease by 40 per cent. by the end of the century. At the same time it will ease traffic problems, decrease atmospheric pollution and global warming and improve the balance of payments.
10.13 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, my wife and I have seven bicycles between us. To adapt a dictum of the American humorist James Thurber, you might say we have bicycles like other people have mice. But I hope that our bicycle bank at least indicates a dedication to this most important debate, to the introduction of which I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.
The Question before us asks Her Majesty's Government how they propose to maximise the environmental, public health and cost benefits of bicycling. First, on the environmental benefits, everyone speaks of the environmental benefits of the process of cycling; but what—reverting for a moment to first principles—are the environmental benefits of its production in the first place? I claim relevance for this simply on the grounds of the scale of production. Since 1988 bicycles have consistently outsold cars, rising from 0.6 million in 1969, to 1.5 million in 1985, to 2.4 million in 1989, and forecast sales of 4 million for 1993. Motor car production is broadly comparable but smaller.
A typical bicycle weighs 30 kilos. The Palace of Westminster's pocket diary for 1993, in the section A Few Simple Yardsticks, says that a Mini weighs about 700 kilos. Assuming in a very generalised way that the manufacturing process of bikes and cars are broadly similar and not particularly user friendly, a 30 kilo cycle requires the processing of only 4.3 per cent. of the materials required for that smallest of cars, the Mini. If that seems an arcane statistic, my Lords, multiply it by 4 million and see where you come out. In use, the environmental disbenefits of motor vehicles are that, according to the DoE, they produce 90 per cent. of our carbon monoxide, 51 per cent. of our nitrogen oxides, 41 per cent. of volatile organic compounds and 19 per cent. of carbon dioxide. The bicycle produces only perspiration.
The motor vehicle wears out the roads; and the cyclist, to his peril, has to cope with the motorists' detritus, pot holes and, where poorly repaired, humps. Speaking from personal experience, a hump can be as destabilising as a hole. Although our new Highways Act may help deal with future roadworks, there seems to be a large backlog of unfilled holes. Indeed, in London, Bloomsbury is like the craters of the moon.
While still on the environmental aspect of this Unstarred Question, it is pointed out in the BMA publication about which we have already heard, Cycling Towards Health & Safety, that the physical exertion entailed in cycling requires deeper breathing, and its attractions are clearly influenced by people's perception of the quality of air that they breathe. The BMA states that ironically,
"an objection voiced by many potential cyclists, particularly those who would commute by bicycle, is the extent to which breathing air polluted by chemical components … may have adverse effects on their health".
Is it too late to make the plea, hoarse through its repetition, that Her Majesty's Government should subsidise and otherwise encourage public and
1674
alternative transport to motor vehicles and stop seeing the solution to all transport problems in terms of building more roads which simply and inevitably encourage greater car and lorry traffic and, importantly in view of their polluting emissions, discourage the environmentally friendly cyclist? Perspiration before suffocation, please.
Finally, on the environmental aspects of cycling, motor transport is both noisy and an eyesore. Cycling is virtually silent and 10 bicycles can be stacked in the space required by one parked car. Our second question relates to the public health benefits of cycling. The BMA report already cited refers to,
"the health and fitness aspects of cycling, perhaps the least researched area of policy on cycling although it may provide the most compelling reasons for encouraging participation".
As a result of the national fitness survey, the Sports Council and the Health Education Authority, but not Her Majesty's Government, there have been recommendations for taking regular exercise as an essential ingredient of healthy living. Cycling fulfils those recommendations perfectly. As we have heard from the noble Lord, regular cycling can improve one's health through improvement in strength, stamina, aerobic fitness and general muscle function. It can even help diet and giving up smoking. It lowers the risk of heart attack.
The BMA's coronary prevention group has listed 20 beneficial effects on health and fitness on page 13 of the publication referred to. It helps shed excess weight and reduces anxiety, stress and depression. If a drug were to come onto the market which did all those things, it would be widely prescribed and it would probably be available on the national health scheme. So why does it get such a low government priority simply because it is pedals rather than pills?
Thirdly, the cost benefits of cycling: a fully fitted new bicycle costs as little as £100 for a sound, basic model. Safety features such as a helmet and reflecting bands may add another £50—say £150 in all. That is about 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. of the cost of a new family car. If the car holds four people, then the cost of four bicycles is about 10 per cent. of the cost. The running costs are minimal. Indeed the bike costs little more than one year's road tax on a car, which is not spent on the roads anyway. A comprehensive insurance policy is a worthwhile addition, mainly to compensate for theft. It is a sad irony that this Aunt Sally of British transport modes is mainly at risk from other people trying to steal it.
And so to the pith of the Question; namely, how do Her Majesty's Government propose to maximise the environmental, public health and cost benefits of cycling? First and foremost, I think there is little point in setting targets for numbers of cyclists. This is simply pulling up one's policy by the bootstraps in the mistaken belief that utterance will become reality. What cyclists need above all are user-friendly conditions in which to cycle. As we have heard, there are 6 million regular bicycle users. But—and I stress this, my Lords—there are 15 million bicycles in ownership in the UK. That means that 9 million are in the garden shed, so to speak, and lying relatively

1675
unused. This, as it were, Pavlovian response is caused mainly by fear—fear of accidents and fear of breathing mainstream motor effluent.
Cycling is like gardening. The bicycle is fragile. Mulching and a little environmental sunshine will bring out thousands—perhaps millions—of these bikes. After all, the 1990 survey quoted in the BMA's Cycling recorded that 99 per cent. of men and 87 per cent. of women over the age of 15 claiming that they could ride a bicycle. The same survey recorded that 90 per cent. of both junior school boys and girls own a bicycle. These, and the 4 million expected to be sold this year, constitute a vast potential reservoir of cycling which, in my analogy with gardening, is all too often frosted in the bud by unfriendly facilities.
Her Majesty's Government, while overtly encouraging cycling, also overtly rely entirely on local authorities to implement friendly conditions. This is a radical difference, for example, to the USA where the promotion of cycling is part of federal transportation policy. Every state has to provide a transportation policy for walking and cycling. I ask the Minister who is to reply why Her Majesty's Government are so shy of doing something similar. It cannot be not wishing to be a nanny state, because this lady appears everywhere else in our lives. And nanny is needed because a majority of local authorities are totally devoid of cycling muscle.
The fact is that since the 1977 Transport White Paper local authorities have been informed that expenditure on provision for the needs of cyclists will be "eligible", but that the proposals must be aimed at reducing accidents and are only for roads of more than local importance. This "eligibility" is no substitute for a mandatory requirement. As a result, some local authority bids from Her Majesty's Government are derisively low—I believe £10,000 from one London borough—and the money does not have to be spent specifically on cycling but can be "lost" in the local authority safety budget.
Initiatives between the Department of Transport and local authorities have produced some startling results, as in the Greater Nottingham Cycle Route Network, completed in 1990. But I would have thought that the success of such schemes would urge on Her Majesty's Government to take on a much more dominant and demanding role on behalf of the cyclists they say they support. The Cyclists Public Affairs Group, an umbrella body, told me last week that it knows of only one or two civil servants in the Department of Transport with responsibility for cycling, and only for safety at that, and only part-time with other responsibilities at that. The BMA agrees.
The reorganised Road Research Laboratory has much reduced its research on cycling although I take the point of the quotation that was given by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, which indicated that, if much reduced, the laboratory is not entirely moribund. It has reduced its research on cycling to about £95,000 out of a £27 million budget and that, again, is exclusively on safety aspects. With the admirable exception of Red Routes, traffic surveys do not automatically include cyclists, so that with no requirement to monitor expenditure either, it is no
1676
wonder, but highly regrettable, that there is little meaningful local authority data on cyclists. Nearly all that there is emanates from private sector research organisations.
The Thousand Mile Scheme for a thousand miles of cycle lanes, after a good start with 125 miles by 1982–10 years ago—had reached only 170 miles last year. To encourage Her Majesty's Government, one might point out that the Netherlands allocates 10 per cent. of its capital spending on roads to cycling facilities and by 1986 had an impressive network of 13,500 kilometres of cycle lanes. "But", I hear your Lordships say, "the Netherlands is flat". Well, Germany is decidedly bumpy, and, while the ownership level of cycles in Britain in 1985 was about 24 per cent., in West Germany it was 74 per cent. As the BMA says in Cycling:
"these higher levels on the Continent are not explained by lower levels of car ownership there. Indeed, people in West Germany are about 30 per cent. more likely than those in Britain to own a car".
The BMA feels that government could take a much more positive role in using all the means at their disposal actively to promote cycling rather than treating it as a marginal form of transport. But their activities need to be co-ordinated—a director of cycling, perhaps, analogous to the Director of Traffic appointed to oversee the Red Routes organisation—so that cycling can be promoted as a means of travel and as a means of reducing road congestion (Department of Transport); secondly, as a means of health promotion (Department of Health); thirdly, as a means of conserving fossil fuels (Department of Energy); and, fourthly and finally, as a means of reducing damaging gaseous emissions from motor vehicles (Department of the Environment).
Finally, I have already said that cycling is like gardening. There is potentially an awful lot of it around, and in this respect it is like sowing grass seed: hundreds, thousands, millions of little green shoots. But like the grass seed, it needs watering to encourage it. Is it too much to hope that Her Majesty's Government might abandon their hitherto velvet glove approach, don their gardening gloves and get out their watering can?
10.26 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, made a valid point about the benefits of cycling and the analogy to the benefits of a drug. I hope that he will be able to repeat his thoughts in the debate on the pharmaceutical industry which we are to have in a week or so because I believe that it is important.
As a helpful response to comments I made at col. 1076 of Hansard on 7th February 1984 during discussions on the Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth sent me a copy of a statement made by the then Secretary of State for Transport on cycling policy which was issued in January 1982. That statement included an announcement that the Government,
"very much welcomes the revived interest in cycling which can bring benefits to the community in terms of reduced congestion, pollution and energy costs".

1677
The statement expressed hope that the growing recognition of cyclists' needs would lead to more widespread action to improve facilities which in turn would encourage more people to cycle. It went on to say that,
"the programme of innovatory cycle schemes will be extended to include one or two large-scale projects designed to monitor the effect on cycling demand of developing a continuous urban route or network".
The statement's conclusion was clear:
"The Government welcomes the evidence provided by the responses to the consultation paper that local authorities, other interested bodies, and cyclists themselves are giving careful thought to ways in which cycling can be made safer and more pleasant. The Government remains committed to the encouragement of cycling and will continue to support these efforts, without attempting to impose central direction upon the variety of local circumstances".
In answer to a Question from me in October 1992, my noble friend Lord Caithness said that the Government recognised the value of cycling and acknowledged its potential health advantages. He made a further commitment to safer cycling and stated that the Government were working to improve traffic conditions through publicity and by technical advice to highway authorities. What happened in the intervening years? I regret to say that little changed.
I have to declare an interest as a typical cyclist in a big city, doing an average mileage every working day—come rain, wind or shine—and I am not aware of any radical improvements, any real evidence, which my noble friend the Minister can honestly say has changed much in the nine years separating my Questions.
There was talk six years ago of a plan for 1,000 miles of strategic cycle routes for London. The plan was accepted by the Department of the Environment in its guidelines for London and boroughs were pressed during the unity development plans process. When my noble friend Lord Parkinson finally abandoned the assessment studies in 1990 he pledged that the Department of Transport would work with the boroughs to produce a network. By 1987 only some of the 130 schemes which had been implemented contributed to the continuous cycle routes envisaged and some cycle lanes have even been removed.
Today there are only 125 miles in place and 220 in preparation. The remaining 700 miles are still at the discussion stage and yet—as my noble friend Lord Marlesford said—we have evidence every day of new roads and traffic management schemes which continue to be implemented and which have absolutely no consideration for cyclists at all. We have heard of the relatively small cost of providing cycle lanes and yet despite assurances that cyclists will be given consideration they are consistently ignored. Progress has been very slow and the intended co-operation between the different authorities lacks the coordination that should be provided by a central agency. Even the new traffic director for London, who has set useful standards for considering the needs of cyclists and made the collection of data about cyclists mandatory preparation for all new schemes, does not have the jurisdiction to co-ordinate the overall development of the 1,000 mile scheme.
1678
A report prepared for the European Cyclists Federation by planners, politicians and cycle activists in 10 European countries has found that cycling conditions in the UK are the second-worst in Europe. Riding a bicycle in the UK is the least fun and cyclists are given the least respect by those around them. The UK cyclist has the least amount of priority over motor traffic and has the worst winter maintenance service for bicycle facilities.
The report shows that we are lagging way behind the rest of Europe in promoting and providing for cyclists. Surely we ought to be able to enjoy the same level of cycling as Denmark or the Netherlands and at the same time dramatically improve our urban environment.
I am well aware of, and cannot condone, the way in which some cyclists break some of the rules that exist for motor vehicles. But I can confirm that the majority of rule breakers do it entirely for reasons of self-preservation. There is a cycle route which goes through Hyde Park and crosses Knightsbridge into William Street, which is a one-way street going north. Travelling south the cycle lane suddenly ends about 10 metres into William Street. There the cycle lane is replaced with metered parking leaving the cyclist with no alternative but to continue down the one-way street to rejoin the correct line of traffic flow. I find it hard to understand the planning decision that caused such an obvious problem.
I should be grateful if my noble friend would comment on the likely effect of the New Roads and Street Works Act which was passed in 1991 but is not yet operative. Once the Act is implemented local authorities will retain final responsibility for road maintenance. However, with limited funds for this work and no general policy requirement to keep routes used by cyclists in a good state of repair the situation may not significantly improve. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear of the dangerous condition of many roads in our capital. The area used by cyclists is often pot-holed and affected by obstructions which remain for months. Illegal parking, parking in bus lanes and general congestion are a continual problem. I should like the Minister to join me and cycle down Bond Street to see the virtual restriction of the street to one lane, with chauffeur driven limousines, engines running, and unattended parked cars taking up the space which should be available for free traffic flow and for cyclists.
Another major hazard is the debris deposited in the cycle areas by waste disposal lorries. There is something about the design of vehicles which take away household and street rubbish which allows any glass that is crushed to fall on to the street. Most cyclists would be able to point out the places in a road where those vehicles stop to load rubbish as each stopping place is marked by a line of broken glass. This presents a major hazard for cyclists.
Provision for the parking of cycles is also totally inadequate. It should not be too difficult or expensive to provide areas for locking up cycles at major railway stations and other sites in big cities. Some of your Lordships will have seen the splendid facilities at, for example, Oxford station, where there is space to lock

1679
up hundreds of cycles. In London there are very few areas for locking up bicycles and there is a growing trend for landlords to place signs on railings—the easiest and most convenient place to secure a bicycle—to the effect that cycles will be removed if left attached to them. I have heard that similar signs are now appearing on parking meters in some areas; namely, that cycles will be removed if locked to the meters. Will my noble friend remind me of the law on this? Are landlords or local authorities entitled to place these signs and to physically remove parked cycles? If they are, some action for alternative parking facilities is of the utmost urgency.
As president of the Arterial Health Foundation—a new charity formed to promote the prevention of coronary artery disease and about which your Lordships will be hearing more from me on another occasion—it is clear to me that cycling is more healthy than other forms of transport as well as contributing to a reduction in air pollution. Coronary heart disease accounts for about 80 per cent. of heart disease and is responsible for a third of all deaths in men and a quarter in women. Treatment of heart related conditions cost the NHS over £500 million in 1988 to which should be added an estimated 41.5 million lost working days, costing industry about £1.8 billion as well as the costs in terms of personal and family anxiety.
It is now thought that a 20 per cent. shift to bicycles could cut coronary heart disease by 4 per cent. Regular exercise, taken on a day to day basis, is the ideal way of preventing heart disease. Given safe provision, cycling as part of a daily routine could represent an ideal straightforward and much more widely available means of maintaining fitness and gaining other health advantages.
In conclusion, I am sure that my noble friend will be most sympathetic and agree with most of what has been said this evening, but we have heard this sort of response before. Those of us who feel strongly about cycling have had discussion with the Cyclists Public Affairs Group and have identified nine simple actions which the Government could take to encourage cycling. They have already been carefully explained by my noble friend Lord Marlesford and I am sure that they will be repeated again this evening. Now is the Government's opportunity to make a real commitment to cycling and to ensure that positive action is taken in the very near future.
10.37 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for introducing this debate this evening which clearly focuses on the need for better facilities for cyclists. As a regular motorcycle commuter, I do not have the depth of experience and expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who I understand is the most regular bicycle commuter of your Lordships' House. What has been established by several noble Lords who have spoken this evening is that there is an urgent need for the better promotion of cyclists' interests when decisions are made on the design of road improvements and the planning of traffic management schemes.
1680
There is also a requirement for more incentives to promote cycling; for example, the proposed 1,000 mile strategic cycle route network for London which, if ever completed—and from what I have heard from other noble Lords who have spoken this evening, one cannot believe that it ever will be completed—can only be seen as a model for other similar schemes which could achieve greater cycling in the urban areas around Britain.
With well in excess of 15 million bicycle owners in Britain, and with scarcely over 1 million daily bicycle commuters, it is well known that we are well behind our European partners in cycle use. From figures that I have recently received from the Cyclists Public Affairs Group, only 2.3 per cent. of journeys in Britain are presently made by bicycle compared with 11 per cent. in Germany, 18 per cent. in Denmark and 29 per cent. in the Netherlands.
In my brief contribution to the debate, I wish to focus specifically on four areas: first, the need for greater safety for cyclists; secondly, the desirability of reducing traffic congestion and thereby reducing exhaust emissions; thirdly, ways to reduce the risk of cycle theft—a point that has already been made by several speakers; and, finally, a number of incentives to promote more use of bicyles as a means of transport.
In raising the issue of greater safety for bicyclists, that encompasses not just the provision of better facilities such as cycle lanes and cycle priority routes, but also the setting of guidelines for cyclists themselves; for example, the wearing of helmets and reflective bands. Statistics have shown that most cycling accidents occur at junctions and that there is a real need for more advance stop lines which will provide more space at junctions for cyclists, making them more visible, to other road users.
With the current insufficient facilities for cyclists in most urban areas, there is a perception among many bicycle owners who may be keen to commute to work that it is not safe to do so at the moment. There is also a feeling among many cyclists that other road users do not take bicycle lanes seriously. The police should be far stricter about cars parking and, for that matter, obstructing bicycle lanes and also, on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, bicycle lanes should be kept clean from broken bottles and refuse.
One of the main submissions of the Transport Committee's cycling report of 8th May 1991 was that cyclists suffer badly from the inadequate enforcement of traffic law. I know that many would say that it is just as important for the police to enforce traffic laws on bicyclists as car owners. Traffic laws must be enforced on both. It is quite clear that the result of insufficient cycle lanes has caused a major problem for cyclists mixing with the traffic flow. That is both dangerous for cyclists and, obviously, for motorists.
While the costs of delays caused by traffic congestion to businesses throughout Britain are enormous, as I have already mentioned, there are the added problems of the increase in exhaust emissions from the increasing traffic flow into urban areas. As we all concur this evening, bicycling should and can play a major role in reducing the levels of urban traffic

1681
congestion. There must be considerable scope for encouraging more combined usage of bicycles and public transport which has, for example, been effectively implemented in Japan. Cities such as Cambridge, Oxford and, for that matter, York which have focused on improvements in cycle facilities, have shown that this has effectively increased the use of bicycles and reduced traffic congestion in those areas. It has been estimated that, with proper planning, 20 per cent. of non-walk trips could be made by cycles in a typical town in Britain. That would represent a 6 per cent. reduction in pollutants.
Cycle theft has been on the increase in the past few years. There is said to be a one-in-a-hundred chance of having your bicycle stolen each year. That compares to a one-in-50 chance of having your car stolen. Greater consideration should be given to the security of bicycles in part by the provision of more bicycling facilities in central areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, has already mentioned, 10 bicycles can be parked in one normal parking bay. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, said, some stations already have extensive bicycling storage facilities. More stations should be encouraged to do this.
There are many ways in which bicyclists can be encouraged to use their bicycles to commute to work. I understand that several companies, for example, the Body Shop, have been offering incentives for their employees to commute by bicycle, such as offering large discounts on the purchase of bicycles, safe parking, as well as showering and changing facilities at work and other financial incentives.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, made extensive mention, it is well documented that Britain has a high rate of heart disease and strokes. Statistics have certainly shown that regular cyclists display a noticeably lower incidence of those diseases. Once the 1,000 mile strategic cycle route network is developed in London—if that ever happens—I am sure that it will act as a major incentive for more commuters to cycle to work rather than to drive.
As we all know, over the past few years there has been an increasingly higher rate of tax levied on the use of cars in the form of higher petrol taxes, but that does not appear to have reduced the levels of road traffic in most of the major cities around Britain. While it is well known that arrangements for cyclists fall under the auspices of local authorities, it is noteworthy that the Secretary of State for Transport has recently stressed that concern for the environment must be built into every aspect of transport policy and,
"an effective modern transport system is not an optional extra, it is a vital part of modern life".
It is certainly to this end that the need for better facilities around Britain for cyclists must surely be a major contributing factor in this policy. I note that the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was not able to give the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, a satisfactory reply to his Written Question of 4th February this year asking what the Government have,
"spent on facilities specifically for bicyclists in the last five years, and what they plan to spend in each of the next three years".—[Official Report, 4/2/93; col. WA23.]
1682
While I appreciate that local authorities are responsible for deciding on bicycle facilities, what is the Government's overall strategy to encourage the development of safe and convenient cycling networks throughout Britain's urban areas? In conclusion, I hope that this evening the Minister can give us some assurance that cyclists' interests will in future be given greater priority, thus promoting the call of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford,
"to maximise the environmental, public health and cost benefits of bicycling as a means of personal transport in Britain".
10.47 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Marlesford not because I am a bicycle enthusiast but because I live in London and see some distinct advantages in encouraging more people to ride bicycles and fewer people to drive cars. My noble friend has asked Her Majesty's Government how they propose to maximise the environmental, health and cost benefits of bicycling.
Before I propose some suggestions to encourage more bicyclists to take to the road, I believe it is worth looking at some of the advantages and benefits of bicycling. But I must emphasise that without proper conditions for bicyclists they are not only a danger to themselves but are also a danger to motorists. We have already heard that bicycling is a healthy activity. I am informed that bicycling for 20 miles a week reduces the risk of coronary heart disease and that a 20 per cent. move towards bicycling would cut coronary heart disease by 4 per cent., reducing the current National Health Service expenditure of £481 million on that disease.
As we have heard, bicycling keeps people fit, assists them in losing excess weight and for those using their bicycle as a means of personal transport it saves their travel fares. A second advantage of encouraging more bicycle riders is that it would lead to fewer motor cars on the roads and fewer demands on public transport, which should assist in an increase in the speed of London traffic flow and less pollution on the streets.
I now turn to how we can support and encourage the bicyclist. I understand that local government is responsible for bicycle lanes within its boundaries, but how do we get local authorities to ensure bicycle lanes are included in their planning and implemented during the construction phase? Bicycle lanes are an essential factor if present bicyclists are to continue to be bicyclists. Without properly and carefully planned bicycle lanes future bicycle riders will not be encouraged to take to the roads.
I should like to stress the importance of a carefully planned bicycle lane network within London linking the boroughs, local centres, main commuter working areas and the main line railway stations. On the 300 miles of Red Routes bicycle lanes should be mandatory. Local government should ensure that all future planning applications include secure storage areas for bicycles where relevant. British Rail should provide bicycle racking on its trains for commuters, who could then use their bicycles from home to station to place of work.

1683
In conclusion, I should like to ask my noble friend how local authorities can be persuaded to increase the number of bicycle lanes, construct an inter-London bicycle route network and ensure secure areas for bicycle storage at commuter places of work. I suggest that the London Traffic Director sets up an action group involving the Department of Transport and local authorities to determine what is required to construct a London network of bicycle lanes and consider means of overcoming the many difficulties involved in implementing those lanes.
It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that the bicycle flow at the Finborough Road-Kings Road junction is eight bicycles per minute between 08.25 hours and 08.30 hours on a weekday morning. That is 40 bicycles every five minutes.
In summary, I believe that encouraging more people to bicycle will reduce heart disease, reduce the number of private and public vehicles on London's congested roads, lessen pollution and speed up the traffic flow. It is for those reasons, and others, that I support my noble friend's Question.
10.51 p.m.
Lord Amwell: My Lords, we have heard tonight of the desire of noble Lords to see pedal cycling encouraged to become a practical means of personal transport, such that by modest expenditure congestion in towns might be reduced. While I agree with much of what noble Lords have said tonight, I believe that that fundamental concept is unrealistic.
We have to start from the fact that, apart from perhaps Oxford and Cambridge which have very special circumstances, there is little significant use of cycles for personal transport anywhere else in this country at present, even in those towns especially designed to encourage them. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, has told us that 1 million cyclists are daily commuters. I am surprised that the figure is so high.
Stevenage, one of the new towns of the 1940s, has an internationally renowned system of cycleways which completely separate the cyclist and pedestrian from the car throughout the central area of the town. It is renowned because it was the first example of its kind anywhere in the world, and it remains a first-class example of what should be done when planning a new town. Obviously that is not practical in an existing townscape. I drive through Stevenage every day on my way from my home to my office. Those cycleways are hardly used. The same can be said of the modern equivalent of Stevenage - the Redways of Milton Keynes. They are excellent as road safety measures, but they do not seem to be attractive as a means of getting to work.
Some noble Lords will know that I am a civil engineer and an inveterate road builder. They may think that my views are the incoherent ramblings of someone dedicated to satiating the needs of the internal combustion engine. I hope that that is not so. Engineers have to look very hard at cost-effectiveness and, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, it is easy to see that the provision of special cycling facilities in an existing townscape is
1684
likely to be very expensive indeed. The concept of hollowing out a way beside an underpass, in engineering terms, is very difficult. On the basis of cost-effectiveness many cycle provisions will be non-starters.
However, what I want to see—and here I am absolutely behind the noble Lord's Question—is an ever greater commitment to expenditure on road safety measures. As pedal cyclists are the most vulnerable of road users it is only right that the most urgent measures should be for them.
A couple of years ago, the Institution of Civil Engineers in its report on congestion observed that congestion increases the risk of accident for cyclists and pedestrians. While the lower speeds diminish the severity of the accident, congestion increases the frequency to the extent that 70 per cent. of all accidents occur in urban areas. One does not have to be a genius to reach that conclusion intuitively, but it is encouraging to see it written down in an authoritative report.
It was good therefore to see that the Department of Transport's TSG for local safety schemes rose from £31 million two years ago to £43 million last year. That is very good news indeed. But in the context of the department's total expenditure it is a trifling sum. The department should really spend far more in that direction and should encourage local authorities to come forward with enterprising schemes for road safety, secure in the knowledge that if their schemes are sound they will obtain the money. I am sure that they would respond if the department put that forward as a concept. I hope that the Minister may be able to give us some encouragement on that issue.
One area which is in urgent need of reform is that of how a cyclist crosses a road. It is legal for him to push his bike across a Pelican crossing on foot but it is not legal for him to cycle across. That law is widely abused, as we all know. I do not believe that the Government have yet stated their position on the experimental Toucan crossings. As they seem to be a good way forward, perhaps the Minister will be able to give us some encouragement on that issue too today.
The Department of Transport has said that its safety campaign for child safety helmets showed increasing awareness and that sales of helmets rose as a result. That is good news, but it was a little disappointing in the department's expenditure plans for the coming years not to be able to read that the campaign will continue. I do not know whether or not it will. It is my observation that the youngest cyclists now wear helmets as a matter of course, but older children and young adults do not. Having two teenage sons, I know that they will not be seen abroad in a safety helmet, even though they belt up on the front or back seat of a car without a second thought. Safety campaigns need to be continued for long enough to take proper effect across the whole age range, rather than to be set aside by the Government when the initial results have been seen to be encouraging.
Finally, perhaps I may comment on new roads, in particular town and village bypasses. We have heard noble Lords state today that they are dangerous to

1685
their most vulnerable users just because of the higher speeds. The road safety evidence does not support that; it denies it. Town and village bypasses are very much safer roads. Despite what has been said today, as someone who has been designing new roads for 30 years, and continues to do so, we make provision for cyclists. We make special provision, for example, for cyclists to cross the end of slip roads, the most dangerous place on a new road. Despite making that provision and signing it, we can all of us observe that cyclists do not take notice of such provision and signs. They continue to cycle across the most hazardous areas. I do not know what we can do about that; but we need to do something.
However, where a bypass has been provided, we should be reminding ourselves of the improved conditions on the old road through the town or village where conditions for cyclists and pedestrians alike will be vastly improved. That is the environment, close to the centre of gravity of the short trips which most cyclists undertake, where the greatest safety benefits will accrue. That is where local safety measures can be most effective. However, and despite the statistics, I believe that we all have a duty to discourage the young and inexperienced cyclists from using the highest speed roads. In their inexperienced condition, the highest speed roads place them at ever greater risk.
In summary, I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and others in everything that they have said on expenditure on road safety. However, I regret that I can never see the pedal cycle as a serious competitor for Ford or Rover.
10.59 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Marlesford for suggesting that I might make a contribution to the debate on his Unstarred Question. I was a trifle apprehensive when my noble friend admitted that he occasionally rode on the pavement. Having heard too from my noble friend Lord Colwyn of his experience of a particular cycle track which I often cross in a car when driving to the House, I can quite understand that there are difficulties. It was put most colourfully by my noble friend.
I shall try to concentrate on the environmental advantages of cycling and other health advantages which have been indicated by various noble Lords, not least by my noble friend Lord Colwyn. Of course, cycling is a clean, cost effective and space effective method of transport. As for public health, let alone the health of the cyclist, I have no specialist knowledge, but I try to keep to the average fitness of noble Lords, which requires not just exercise but also discipline in the amount of energy and calories we put into ourselves each day.
As regards the environmental aspects of cycling, I concur totally with everything that has been said about attempting to separate cycle traffic from motor traffic. The noble Lord, Lord Amwell, put it superbly and we are grateful for his professional views of how to design systems of transport so that cyclists and motor drivers may go about their business in the
1686
greatest possible safety. Noble Lords mentioned Hyde Park Corner. Anyone who rides a bicycle around there is extremely courageous as well as being fairly able.
In my career at the University of Oxford, I recall the A.34—if it has been renumbered, my noble friend on the Front Bench may be able to advise us—which leads out to Woodstock. Even in my time at Oxford it was dual carriageway. In Oxfordshire, there is plenty of space. So between the hedgerow, field and the ample dual carriageway, which was even at that time heavily used by traffic travelling between Oxford and the Cowley motor factories and the Midlands, there was an excellent pavement for pedestrians. There was also a nearly five-foot wide cycle path virtually all the way to Woodstock. It was an excellent track. I used it on a regular basis.
I wonder whether the Minister agrees that cyclists are to be admired and that cycling is an excellent method of transport in London. However, as a pedestrian and a motorist, I have been somewhat worried by the behaviour of a tiny minority of cyclists. They ride mountain bikes with fairly robust wheels and tyres and behave as motorists or wheeled transport until they come to a red light with motorists waiting. Quick as a flash, they change their attitude to that of pedestrians and cross with them, mount the pavement and set off again. I believe that it is a small minority of cyclists. It is in areas like Sloane Square or Hyde Park Corner that one sees such cases.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford was perhaps just hinting—I hope I understood him correctly—that cyclists might share space with pedestrians. I invite him and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, to accompany me to Leicester Square, which is a fairly large pedestrian precinct. They might agree with me that there would be a certain amount of danger. We tend to regard noble Lords crossing the road outside Parliament as being either the quick or the dead. There might be the possibility of pedestrians not perhaps being dead but otherwise engaged if they had to avoid cyclists in going about their business.
I wish to draw noble Lords' attention to one aspect of the health and recreation of cycling. It may not surprise your Lordships that about 35 years ago I suffered a serious accident when ski-ing which caused a long-term fitness problem for me. It may not surprise my noble friend Lord Colwyn, who is a great supporter and adviser to many noble Lords on health aspects, that my orthopaedic surgeon jokingly suggested that I would benefit from cycling to rebuild my leg, ligaments, knees and ankles.
In that same summer of 1959 I obtained very valuable free French lessons from the radio and became an avid student of the Tour de France bicycle race and of cycling as a major sport. In 1960 I do not think that mountain bikes had even been invented. People had what one might call "proper" bicycles. The last time I saw my noble friend Lord Colwyn riding his bicycle he had what I think of as a proper bicycle with fairly large wheels and excellent brakes. I do not know whether it was multi-geared but he had what I call a proper bicycle.
In 1960, sports, lightweight and racing bicycles were available. Indeed, in 1993 the only difference

1687
seems to be that the price makes one gasp. Certainly, the price of racing bicycles that I was studying yesterday would have bought an E-type Jaguar in 1962 when I was at Oxford—£2,500 for a racing bicycle with graphite and Campagnolo gears and all the rest. So there have been technical advances as well as advances in price.
I admire cycling as an aid to health and fitness, but I am no zealot. Last summer I was advised, taking a day's respite in the Alps, that there was an easy cycle tour available. I rented a mountain bike, and I was told: "It's all right. You're only going 10 kilometres". What nobody explained was that there was a climb of 1,200 feet. I arrived at the end of my 10 kilometres in a state which would have given great pleasure to my noble friend Lord Colwyn. Back at the resort, when I told people that I had bicycled up there, they were genuinely concerned—not just about my physical health, but about my mental health too. I had attempted to do something which they said was foolhardy. I was used to it. I am used to many things in this House. I was certainly used to a cycle trip of that nature. It did me a lot of good and I enjoyed it greatly.
It is indicative of cycling as a recreation that the very day that my noble friend put down his Motion for debate in this House a photograph appeared in the press of my honourable friend the Minister for Sport, who was, with Bernard Hinault, five-times winner of the Tour de France, in Trafalgar Square with a racing bicycle. They were promoting the arrival next year, on 6th and 7th July, of two stages of the Tour de France which will race over roads—I understand they will be closed roads—in Kent, Sussex and Hampshire. I give notice to my noble friends on the Front Bench that whatever takes place, I shall be watching that great sport on those two days.
I reiterate everything that has been said by my noble friend and by other noble Lords this evening. Cycling is indeed an excellent and a very healthy method of transport. But I stress—I hope that my noble friend will agree with me and that the Minister will also agree—that cyclists have a great deal of responsibility both for their own personal health and fitness and the health of others. I look forward to hearing the views of my noble friend on the Front Bench and of the noble Viscount on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I was not aware that they were great fans of pedal cycles, although they possibly are of other forms of two-wheel cycling. Given the enthusiasm engendered by the debate, we look forward to hearing the reply.
11.9 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I should declare my interest as a fair weather cyclist and fairly frequent motor cyclist. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for raising the cause of cycling in this way. I hope that the House will allow me at this time of night to mention just a few points which I believe are important in the area of cycling.
It has been apparent this evening that progress in bicycling has to be made on a number of different fronts. There is no single solution. We should be
1688
particularly grateful for the energy and youthful enthusiasm of the lobbying group centred around the Cyclists' Public Affairs Group, which many speakers have mentioned. Against all the odds, it continues to look after the interests of cyclists. I say that, having been receiving for many years the excellent magazine of the London Cycling Campaign—it is called the London Cyclist—as well as the very informative and readable Cycle Digest of the Cyclists' Touring Club. The other member of this group is the Cycle Campaign Network.
I shall briefly mention, for those who may not know it, the existence at Westminster of the all-party group on Cycling. As the present Treasurer, I should be very pleased to enrol new members from those enthusiasts present this evening or, indeed, any noble Lords who would like to join. Although recently the group has been rather quiet, it may be that after this debate the all-party group could act as a focus for further follow-up of what emerges this evening. One of the advantages of being a member is that one should automatically receive the excellent magazines to which I have just referred.
As a Londoner all my life, I have always used bicycles for short journeys. I have recently noticed new cycle routes, markings and signs in Kensington where I live. That is a useful attempt to connect the central parks with Hammersmith and Fulham. I understand that in Kensington local politicians are taking cycling much more seriously and constructively.
I support what has been said so far about the 1,000-mile route and its problems. Personally, I would advocate a separate cycle traffic director for London with considerable powers to encourage co-ordination. As other noble Lords have said, I too believe that there is much that the Government can do in setting a positive framework and tone to encourage all aspects of cycling.
I commend to the House a successful charity called Sustrans (the name stands for sustainable transport) which designs and builds traffic-free routes for cyclists and walkers. These are for commuters as well as for recreation. It is based in Bristol and is probably best known for converting disused railway lines. I was able to see a presentation of its work at Westminster some months ago. Its methods are an example of what can be achieved with considerable skill and hard work. One of its almost heroic longer term aims is a cycle path from Inverness to Dover, which would include on it some minor roads. I hope that the Government will be able to give continued support to such enterprise.
There is a series of international conferences devoted to cycling called Velo City. I believe that much can be learnt from the experiences in other countries and I hope that the Government will encourage dissemination of the papers and information that are available in this way. This year it is the turn of this country. The conference is to be held in Nottingham in September. I hope that the Government will give it their full support and perhaps, as is sometimes the custom, use the occasion to launch some bicycling initiatives.

1689
Finally, I should like to touch on a matter that I know the following speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will mention in more detail and which is in fact probably only partly relevant to this debate; namely, the problem of unfair dumping of Chinese and Taiwanese bicycles, leading to possibly severe damage to British manufacturers. The case has been argued for some time, but in my opinion it has not been adequately dealt with by the Government. I hope that the Minister can give us some hope that this issue will be resolved soon.
11.14 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Marlesford, to whom we should be very grateful for this evening's short debate, mentioned health, social, environmental and transport issues. For just a very short moment at this late hour I should like to widen the debate, as the noble Viscount did a minute or two ago, to the economic issues. I do not believe that I have ever heard in your Lordships' House so much consensus on a subject as I have heard this evening. It appears that everybody in your Lordships' House and outside it would approve of attempts to promote cycling as a recreation and a useful form of transport for all the different reasons that we have heard.
I would hope to count on a similar level of consensus if I were to ask noble Lords to join me in supporting the idea that the more people who ride bicycles the better, and the more of those people in Britain who ride British bicycles the better still.
The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, mentioned that 4 million bicycles are bought in this country every year. That is a larger figure than I have heard but it is undoubtedly a very large market. What is much more important, and what I should like to bring before the House today, is the fact that an enormous number of the bicycles coming into this country and indeed into the European Community are, as the noble Viscount has just said, bicycles from the Far East that have been dumped.
I do not want to bore the House with figures at this late stage but it is worth pointing out that in 1992 424,000 bicycles came to this country from China and 20,000 came from Hong Kong. Now 20,000 does not appear to be a large figure but it is very large when one considers that Hong Kong does not have a bicycle industry. We can assume where those bicycles have come from. The number from Indonesia was 114,000; Malaysia, 146,000; Taiwan, 554,000; Thailand, 252,000. Those add up to 66 per cent. of the bicycle market.
This would not in itself matter because I am, like many noble Lords, a free marketeer. I believe in competition. There is nothing wrong with people trying to sell their bicycles in this country, wherever those bicycles come from, except when it is not a free market and is not a level playing field. In this case it is not, and it is this that I wish to draw to your Lordships' attention.
China has been given the status of the general system of preferences. That means that the Chinese have preferential loans from the World Bank to set up
1690
their business. Set up their business, my Lords! They have 40 per cent. of the world market. They produce 60 million bicycles every year. I ask: do they need our help, if they can do that? Why should China have this status when it makes that many bicycles?
All bicycles are required to get in component parts—Shimono parts—from Japan. Our manufacturers have to pay 8 per cent. duty to do that. The Chinese, the Taiwanese and the other Far Eastern producers do not have to do that when they bring those bicycles into this country or into the European Community to sell. That is an unfair advantage. Why indeed should the Chinese Bicycle Corporation be given preferential Western loans when its owners have made such enormous profits on their share issue in the Far Eastern markets? That is not fair, either. The result of this will be unemployment in the United Kingdom and the European Community. The potential UK job losses are 3,000 to 5,000 in the bicycle industry itself and 12,000 throughout the country. The potential European Community job losses are 25,000 to 30,000 in the industry itself and 70,000 to 100,000 overall. I should not have thought that was desirable. I should have thought that the Department of Trade and Industry—I know that my noble friend on the Front Bench does not speak with its brief—would want to do all that it can to help our industry and not hinder it, as is currently being done by the rules and by Common Market rules.
We have talked about the consumer interest. It is worth pointing out that none of the bicycles coming into our country meets the British standards. Our manufacturers have conducted tests. They have done the fairest tests they can. Out of 15 imported Far Eastern-made bicycles that have been tested—perfectly fairly and openly—not one of them passed the tests for braking in the wet. That does not strike me as being safe for the consumer. I should have thought that Her Majesty's Government would have been interested in that fact. These are bicycles made in Far Eastern sweat shops with preferential loans from the World Bank. They do not have to have duty paid on them and they are not safe for our consumers. Furthermore, their arrival will lead to unemployment.
So this evening, when we turn our attention to trying to encourage more bicycling in this country and more people to get out for healthy exercise and easier commuting which is better for the environment, let us think of the economy, too. Let us hope that the Government will do all they can to make sure that those people ride British bicycles, but at the moment they are not. We are not asking, nor should we ask, for preferential treatment. That is not the idea and that should not be. I believe that the bicycle industry, like the bicycle rider, could do with a level playing field.
11.20 p.m.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, at this late hour I shall not keep noble Lords very long. We must all be grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for introducing this debate. I have seldom heard such unanimity in a debate in your Lordships' House. As we all know, cycling is a very low-cost means of transport. It is beneficial to the health and, in modern

1691
parlance, it is "green". I am surprised that no one has used that word before in this debate. It is also economic of road space and parking space.
I have fond memories of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, before he attained the lofty heights of the Woolsack, pedalling happily along. I wonder how many of your Lordships can remember that. I hasten to disillusion your Lordships who may imagine that I am an ardent cyclist. On the contrary, I confess that I have not ridden a bicycle for many years. The last time I rode one in London I was scared stiff. I rode a borrowed lady's cycle from Fulham to Mayfair. It was only then that I realised just how many hills there are in London. The most alarming part was when I was cycling up Park Lane intending to turn right across the stream of traffic into Upper Brook Street. That experience put me off cycling in London for life. I am afraid that my cycling days are over. However, I am glad to say that my wife is a possessor of a bicycle which she sensibly rides only when the weather is fine. It stands in our hall and takes up rather too much space.
As has been said already, cyclists are very vulnerable. I am glad to see that many of them are now coming to realise that, but often too late. They are now beginning to wear hard hats, reflective safety harnesses and the rest, which we must all welcome. Their size enables them to infiltrate the traffic easily and in heavy traffic. Although they can be left behind on the straight between the lights, they can very easily weave their way through the traffic when it is held up at the lights.
However, many show a plain disregard for the traffic rules, going the wrong way down one-way streets, jumping the lights and riding after dark without lights. The worst habit of all is the developing custom of riding a bicycle along the pavement. Here I must take issue with my noble friend Lord Marlesford. He will remember that a couple of months ago when there was a debate on traffic in London he said happily that he often rides a bicycle along the pavement. It is a practice which I deplore. I have always looked on him as an upright and law-abiding citizen. I was very rudely disillusioned a short time ago and I am shocked. Although I am sure that he takes very good care himself, it is nevertheless a pernicious practice which is becoming more and more popular. My noble friend is probably well aware that it is against the law, but very few people are aware of that. On the rare occasions when I have dared to remonstrate with an offender I have generally received an answer in what can only be described as unparliamentary language.
My noble friend must realise that he is setting a thoroughly bad example. The pavement is for pedestrian traffic and for pedestrian traffic only. Cyclists on footpaths are a great source of danger, especially to elderly people and small children. I am tempted to refer also to skateboards and roller skates but I realise that they are outside the scope of the Question.
I should like to put one or two questions to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I do not expect him to answer them straightaway but, if he is unable to do
1692
so, I should be grateful to receive an answer in due course. First, are the Government aware of the increasingly dangerous practice of riding cycles on the pavement? Secondly, do they agree that it is illegal? Thirdly, what action do they propose to take about it? Fourthly, how many prosecutions have been brought for cycling on the pavement during the past 12 months? As has been said, we need to separate cyclists from the rest of the traffic. That cannot be done by allowing them to ride on the pavement, but it could be done by setting aside dedicated cycle lanes for their use. We also need a publicity campaign to encourage cyclists to obey the traffic rules and to stick to the cycle lanes. I look forward to a few crumbs of encouragement from my noble friend when he replies.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Tebbit is not in the Chamber but, had he been here, I am sure that he would have had good reason to use the well known exhortation, "Get on yer bike!"
11.26 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I have enjoyed the debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for giving me the opportunity to talk about a subject dear to my heart. In fact, being a restless soul, all travel is dear to my heart and I have come to this House on practically everything except a horse and cart. I have both a bicycle and a motor cycle in the House. But perhaps I should not have two means of transport parked here.
I am surprised at the tone of the debate. In a way, it has been very British. I have learnt a great deal, but I have not really understood a lot of what I have been told because the statistics and the health details have been so specific. As far as I am concerned, the main thing about cycling is that it is enormous fun. Perhaps it has become less fun, but I do not find it so. It has certainly become more dangerous, but it is still enormous fun - perhaps there is some fun in that danger.
I wanted to continue the fun of cycling when I went to school and I discovered that at my school, which was one of those establishments beset with rules, I could use a bicycle if I joined certain privileged societies. So I joined the natural history society, which enabled me to visit various cinemas, race-courses and - boys being boys - even a local nudist colony in the environs. I have continued to enjoy cycling although laziness besets one with age and today I tend to ride a motor cycle perhaps more than a bicycle.
As far as government action is concerned, I agree that the Government can do a lot more which affects cyclists, but I do not think that there is much that can be done specifically for cyclists. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, that many of the plans and dreams of cyclists are unlikely to be realised. However, a lot of the action which the Government can take affects all road users. The condition of the roads in London—for example, that of the roads just over the bridge from here—is deplorable whether one is on a bicycle, motor cycle or in a car. There are pot holes and the surface of the road is breaking up to an extent which I would have found surprising in Entebbe or

1693
Dar es Salaam. The Government need to take immediate measures to encourage local authorities to put that to rights as quickly as they can.
Although I found a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, said about health interesting, I would not go down the road that he mentioned. Having been through quite a tough battle recently with other motor cyclists on the subject of the European Commission meddling in motor cycling, I should be very careful about encouraging European participation in any decisions that we take here on cyclists. Heaven knows the kind of things it is trying to introduce for motor cycles without any evidence to support them. We may find the European Commission wanting to legislate for us all to wear fluorescent leotards and pointed helmets to match. Anything could happen. I would not bother too much about Europe at present.
It is boring to cycle in countries such as Belgium and Holland. I have done it. It is much more fun to cycle here. There is much more variety. There are hills, even in the London area. There is no fun in Europe. They know nothing about cycling through the beautiful British countryside. That is the kind of cycling we can enjoy here. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, made the point about railways. I hope that if the Government's plans for the privatisation of the railways reach fruition, facilities for carrying bicycles on trains, and at stations, will be improved.
An interesting remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, is fresh in my mind. He talked about unparliamentary language. Cyclists are a very eccentric lot. Some of their language is strange. They do use unparliamentary language. Motor cyclists and car drivers do too. They usually refer to one's ancestry or call one things which are usually parts of the body below the belt. The other day a cyclist came alongside me at a traffic light. He banged my wing and my wing mirror. He then shouted through my window and told me that I was a divot. I am not sure what a divot is. I know what it is on the golf course. It is apparently a term of invective used by cyclists. It may reflect the higher education nature of many of the cycling fraternity. One can hardly take real offence at that language, but it is clearly not complimentary. Whether calling someone a divot is using unparliamentary language, I do not know. I remain to be advised.
There are charities which are trying seriously to improve the lot of the cyclist. I am not sure whether I should like to be able to cycle along a cycle lane all the way from Inverness to Kent, which I think was suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon. It is useful to have special paths for cyclists. Perhaps railways lines could be converted for cyclists to use. They could be used for families and to teach young children to ride. The charities working for cyclists—I believe that Sustrans is one of them—are admirable, although I should not like to see their aims carried through to the extent that the noble Viscount suggested.
Of course, cycling is healthy, but I do not particularly care whether it is healthy. I did not understand much of what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said. Being a doctor whom I consult occasionally, I am
1694
sure that he is right. But I do not go out thinking about my pulse rate or my longevity and whether it will be improved as a result of cycling. I feel jolly good after I have cycled. I seldom feel stressed or irritated.
Those of your Lordships who are not cyclists should be aware of the dangers. The main dangers in London—if your Lordships see them coming, even in the distance, you should beware—are Post Office vans and diplomatic cars. If your Lordships see them coming, you should draw aside, let them pass, and then continue on your way, because they are a perfect menace. I would add to that—I do not want to be sexist here—Peugeot GTIs driven by attractive young girls between the ages of 19 and 25. The same goes for motor cyclists. I am sure that with experience they will find that going close to a two-wheeled vehicle is not a wise thing to do, but they do it, and it is extremely irritating.
I am not sure what the cantilevered cycle shelf described by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, means. It sounds interesting and picturesque. I can see all kinds of other uses for a cantilevered cycle shelf. It would be very good for racing because we could have an annual cycle race and perhaps raise a lot of money for London. However, I am doubtful whether one would want to use that shelf regularly.
I do not wear a helmet and I hope that we shall not have legislation to make that compulsory. I read in a magazine which was given to me before the debate that in New Zealand their wearing is compulsory. They look pretty idiotic. In fact, if I understand the word correctly most people who wear them look "divots". Maybe a more sensible-looking helmet will be designed but for the moment I shall wear my flat hat.
As I am the chairman of a motor cycle industry theft action group, I must point out that the theft of cycles has reached epidemic proportions. Mostly mountain bikes are stolen, which leads me to remark on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. As he said, mountain bikes are extremely expensive and usually originate, if not wholly, in part from the Far East. Whether people are buying secondhand or new, I recommend that they buy a British bike. I have a 28-inch wheel policeman's bike made in 1948. It has a side stand and is beautifully equipped. It cost £45 and was advertised in a tobacconist's window. There is no need to pay £300 or £400 for a mountain bike which is badly welded and has none of the old British workmanship. I am sure that Raleigh continue the tradition of fine workmanship of British bikes. That is also happening in the motor cycle industry because Triumph has come back in a big way and is producing some of the best motor cycles in the world.
I shall continue to enjoy my cycling. I shall come to your Lordships' House and I shall take enormous care when I do so. I have been lucky thus far during my many years of cycling. Nothing serious has happened to me on a bicycle or on a motor cycle. I take immense care and I am extremely defensive. I urge all noble Lords who have children to urge them to do the same. I urge them to participate with their children in cycling because it one of the best family activities. Children love it and it is a good way to learn whether your

1695
children have road sense. It gives the family many opportunities to criticise their elders, which is always healthy.
This has been a good debate and once again I thank the noble Lord for giving me the chance of speaking in it. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, will have something cheering to say. I know he is sympathetic because both he and I are two-wheel fans.
11.37 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for initiating an interesting debate. It has been interspersed with many interesting experiences and some humour. The noble Lord, Lord Swansea, wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, had sparked the subject in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I do not know about that but the noble Lord certainly spoke of his father getting on his bike in order to search for work. On the other hand, the subject might have been sparked by a Chilean politician called Viera Gallo—that will defeat the Hansard reporters because I am not going to tell them how to spell the name! —who said that socialism can only arrive by bicycle. I do not know what that meant, but there is an interesting contrast between that comment and the experience of Lord Tebbit's father.
In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, made a powerful indictment of the Secretary of State for Transport when he urged him to alter his transport priorities to take account of cycling. I look forward to receiving help from him in no less an important transport debate dealing with the railways, when again it is a question of priorities which must be adjusted.
However, he was right to say that he searched almost in vain for any comment by the Secretary of State about the value of cycling and about its significance in relation to transport policy general. I too have made some search in that regard —and I shall return to that.
It is a neglected issue. It is neglected in terms of the environmental advantages, to which a number of your Lordships drew attention. It is energy efficient. It creates no pollution. It does not add to congestion. It has all those advantages. And yet overall, few, if any, incentives are offered to give any kind of encouragement to that form of transport. Indeed, the situation is more marked by the disincentives that prevail. It is certainly neglected in terms of safety and public health. Common sense standards and regulations should be applied as regards cyclists themselves—and I shall turn to that in a few moments—and some public provision should be made to support cycling on the part of the Government.
I thought it was odd that, having made that powerful indictment on the various grounds set out in the Motion, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, should have concluded his speech by saying that he had every confidence in that silent Secretary of State when it comes to cycling. What grounds for confidence could there have been in the light of his own observations?
It is neglected too in terms of the cost benefits which cycling confers. Above all, it has been neglected by this
1696
Government who, in the detailed joint evidence given by the Department of Transport and Department of the Environment to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution significantly paid only the slightest obeisance to the importance of cycling. In the 68 pages of that document, which I commend to your Lordships, there is one short paragraph in the introduction, there is an even shorter reference in Annex D and there is a brief reference to a commitment entered into by the Prime Minister at Rio to encourage non-motorised modes of transport by providing safe cycleways and footways in urban and suburban centres. A fat lot of hope there is given by this Government when it comes to these matters because they always say—and one of your Lordships referred to it—that it is the responsibility of local authorities. They are suggesting that they have no responsibility whatever in these matters and it is the cash-starved local authorities which should pick up the burdens all the time.
There is all that, despite the fact that there are 15 million cyclists in the United Kingdom who are manifestly not properly catered for and who are poorly served by comparison with many other countries in North-West Europe. Some interesting statistics have been provided. Eleven per cent. of the journeys in Germany are undertaken by cycle, 18 per cent. in Denmark, 27 per cent. in Holland, and 2 per cent. in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the Government have not done very much to encourage the greater use of the cycle in this country.
The environmental advantages are self evident. I hope that when the Secretary of State says:
"it is the Government's responsibility to minimise adverse environmental effects as far as transport is concerned so far as is practicable",
or:
"I want to ensure that concern for our environment is built into every aspect of our transport policy",
it will prove to be more than mere rhetoric. I hope that the Secretary of State will turn his mind, however grudgingly, to the important issue of cycling in relation to transport policy.
We know that traffic pollutants represent a major danger to health. That has been touched upon by my noble friend Lord Rea. We all understand why he has been unable to wait until the end of the debate. I suspect that he did not want to hear from me and perhaps the Minister as well. But we do understand. Of course, it is a danger not only to cyclists, even if they wear a mask, but also—perhaps even more so—to car users who are exposed to all those obnoxious pollutants. There is no safe refuge from traffic pollution.
So far as concerns safety and public health—the second leg of the debate—subject to the caveats to which I have already referred it is incontestable that there are also advantages in that field. Some of the statistics that have been quoted in reports speak for themselves. In 1991, 125 people were killed on pedestrian crossings or on central islands by motor vehicles. In the same year, nearly 2,000 pedestrians—in fact, 1,862—were killed. I do no know how many were injured. Yet only one person was killed by a cyclist. One has to try to assess the terrible cost in

1697
terms of human suffering on the part of the victims and their loved ones, the working opportunities that are squandered and the burden on the health services that those statistics represent.
I shall not go into the benefits conferred by cycling as regards health; indeed, that has been dealt with by a number of speakers. But why, against all the background of the discussion that we have had this evening, should such scant regard be offered to cyclists? They are exposed to unnecessary perils on congested and dangerous urban roads, so why are such inadequate facilities provided? Why, with one or two exceptions—another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford—are cyclists banned, for example, from Royal parks even though they could offer a haven from the kind of perils about which we have heard tonight. Indeed, someone cited the Marylebone Road and the appropriately named Kensington Gore. Why are they given such inadequate attention by highway authorities and planners?
Why do not cycle manufacturers recognise their responsibilities for the life and limb of the cyclists who buy their machines? Car manufacturers increasingly recognise such responsibilities. They know that their responsibilities do not end at the point of sale in relation to the safety and welfare of drivers and passengers. If British cycle manufacturers want to expand their sales—and that has been encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft—why do they not turn their attention to that aspect of the matter?
What about the responsibilities of cyclists themselves? It is all very well to talk about them having increased rights and to say that more attention should be paid to them—and I have already indicated my support for that—but those rights should also be accompanied by their bearing greater responsibilities. Those should include ensuring that their bikes are properly illuminated at night. It is quite a rarity these days to find a cyclist ensuring that his bicycle is properly illuminated both at the front and at the rear. Cyclists believe, I suppose with some justification, that the law will not be enforced against them. I wonder how many incidents there have been of prosecutions, successful or otherwise, initiated by the police to ensure that that law is properly observed. I suspect that the number is very limited.
Cyclists have an obligation to wear properly reflective strips. As to whether or not that is imposed by the European Community is by the way. We are talking about a moral obligation towards other users of the road. They should not weave in and out of traffic, thus putting themselves and others in jeopardy as too many of them do. They should not overtake suddenly and silently on the nearside of cars in the hope that they can get away with it. They should wear helmets, or "skid lids" as I think they are called, even though they may not be the most attractive form of headgear imaginable. They should avoid terrorising pedestrians by speeding along pavements, as some of them do. They should also observe the law and
1698
appreciate that policy to enforce the laws far more rigidly than is currently the case is a burden upon government which is simply not fulfilled at present.
Moreover, some of the cyclist courier companies that seem to be proliferating at a great rate should, in my view, bear some considerable responsibility for giving cyclists a bad name these days. I think their employees come under thoroughly undesirable pressures, operating as most of them do on piece rates, to take risks for the sake of speed. Perhaps those riders should be licensed in some way. That is a matter which needs further investigation.
What are the possible incentives and measures that might be considered? The Government would do well to consider the recommendations that have been made by the British Medical Association in its report entitled Cycling Towards Health and Safety. I only have time to summarise the recommendations that have been made. It suggests that measures should be taken to reduce motor vehicle speeds in urban areas. That is worth considering. Moreover, it recommends that consideration should be given to cyclists' needs when designing traffic calming measures. I very much agree with the point that I believe was made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and another speaker earlier on.
Cycle networks need to be introduced, it is recommended, to provide safer cycling conditions in urban areas. It is just not good enough, as I said before, to repose all responsibilities on local authorities. These actions should include the provision of dedicated cycle tracks. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea. It is extraordinary that when Kensington and Chelsea took over responsibility from the GLC in 1986 for looking after roads it wantonly ripped up cycle lanes. Why on earth it did that, I do not know. That is hardly an encouragement to cyclists. Cycle lanes on all-traffic roads are obviously desirable. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, referred to that matter in his speech.
There are other matters that are dealt with in this report but I wish to draw particular attention to the special arrangements that need to be made at junctions and road crossings which are particularly hazardous for cyclists. It is recommended that the interests of cyclists should be given greater priority at every stage of the planning process for roads and transport routes. That means that cycling has to be given a far higher profile by the Government, who should take a pro-active role in improving the safety of cyclists.
A further recommendation is that local authorities should encourage cycle use in towns by providing secure cycle parks, as indeed is done in Sheffield. That is a real incentive. It is recommended that facilities should be developed to integrate cycling more fully with other means of public transport. That should be seen as complementary to the provision of other modes of transport. Better, more secure cycle parking at bus and train stations and improved arrangements for carrying bikes on trains are also important measures. All those measures represent real incentives. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made that point in his speech.

1699
It is stressed in the report that local authorities should promote cycling for utilitarian, recreational, economic, environmental and health reasons. It is further recommended that cycle manufacturers should assume greater responsibility for the safety of cyclists. That reinforces the point I made earlier.
I turn finally to the political response. It is high time that the Government elevated their sights to recognise that cyclists exist in large numbers and that transport policy is not just about piling more and more cars onto roads. That situation is simply unsustainable. In our policy document entitled London: A Strategy for Transport, the Labour Party specifically urged the importance of giving proper recognition and priority to cycling and to walking. I say that in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, when he urged other political parties to do that. We have done it and we have done it repeatedly from 1990 onwards. We called inter alia for the implementation of the 1,000 mile strategic route network. Again, we did not merely suggest that that could be—irresponsibly, in my view—left to local authorities, which are hard pressed enough.
We pressed for improved provision for cyclists on trains and at stations. We pointed out, as a research report in 1988 had already pointed out to the European Commission, that Britain had the worst environment of any European Community member state in which to cycle. That report also called for more cycle parking facilities and for British Rail to undertake a systematic improvement of cycle parking at all stations in the London region and for new rolling stock to accommodate transportation of cycles. What have the Government done in terms of their discussions with British Rail in order to ensure that that sort of policy is carried out?
In other words, the Labour Party and the BMA in its report were marching hand in hand so far as concerns the provision of proper conditions for cyclists.
What have the Government ever done in any of their much-vaunted budgets to encourage cycling? They have had every opportunity to do so and they have done nothing to provide incentives, for example, for employers to offer cash alternatives to the company car for those using cycles. Cyclists have simply not ranked, largely because their lobby is not seen as powerful in comparison with the road lobby. That is the reality of the politics behind this matter.
The Government have a powerful case to answer. Some of your Lordships have let the Government off the hook much too easily, though implicit in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, were very potent criticisms, which he somehow allowed to be weakened in the peroration. That was a pity. Now the Minister has his chance.
11.56 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for introducing this Question and giving us the opportunity to debate cycling issues. As has been said this evening, my noble friend has done much to raise the profile of cycling in recent months with a series of interesting Questions.
1700
The environmental, health and cost benefits of cycling are being recognised by increasing numbers of people. Best estimates are that there are at least 15 million bicycles in the UK. Around 11 million people cycle, nearly 4 million doing so regularly.
As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, the past few years have seen an increase in people's awareness of how their everyday decisions may have an impact on the environment. Nowhere has that been more clearly shown than in the area of transport. The Government recognise that cycling is an energy efficient and environmentally friendly means of transport. There is scope for cycling trips to increase, and if those journeys are made at the expense of the car, that in turn would lead to a reduction in traffic congestion and pollution. Increased bicycle sales over recent years show that there is potential interest in greater use of the bicycle.
The Government also acknowledge the health benefits, highlighted by my noble friend Lord Colwyn, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, which can be derived from cycling, in common with other sporting activities. However, we do not accept all the findings of the BMA report. In particular, we believe that road safety implications have not been given proper weight.
As the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, stated, cycling is essentially a convenient means of travel over short distances, though some cyclists cover considerably greater distances, particularly in sporting and recreational activities, as described by my noble friend Lord Lyell. It is not surprising, therefore, that the overwhelming volume of cycling takes place on local authority roads, which make up 96 per cent. of the national road network. It is for local highway authorities to decide on the scale of facilities for cycling on those roads, taking account of what they can afford. Rightly, therefore, authorities have a wide range of powers, without central government interference, to provide cycle lanes, cycle tracks and other traffic engineering measures which can enhance the safety of cyclists.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford suggested a number of potential traffic engineering schemes. First, I can reassure my noble friend that the Department of Transport takes the needs of cyclists into account when considering all construction, reconstruction or improvement to trunk roads, and it advises local highways to do the same. Modifying urban underpasses to give extra space to dedicated cycle facilities would indeed be an expensive undertaking and would be a matter for individual highway authorities to consider against particular local circumstances.
Local authorities already have a wide knowledge of technical means of providing better and safer facilities for cyclists. But it is for those authorities to judge the extent of the provision they make for cycling against other competing priorities.
To answer a point also raised by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, I should add that the Department of Transport has already published technical advice on the use of advance stop lines and is undertaking further research which should result in

1701
additional guidance being published later this year. Also the conversion of footways and footpaths to cycle tracks is extensively covered in the Department of Transport Local Transport Note 2/86 entitled Shared use by cyclists and pedestrians.
But there is a wider role for central government. We are committed to helping overcome the practical difficulties faced by cyclists and those who might cycle, in particular on the major concern of safety, which has been raised by a number of noble Lords today. Thus we have concentrated on initiatives to improve the behaviour of road users through education and publicity and through traffic engineering, a policy which seems to have complete support from noble Lords who have spoken today.
The Government are spearheading a major campaign to encourage people to drive more carefully and at speeds consistent with the area through which they are passing. The strategy has been detailed in a publication Killing Speed and Saving Lives. The document stresses that the speeding driver is the major cause of death and injury on the roads. The problem of speeding is being tackled in a number of different ways—improved detection through radar devices, the admission of photographic material as sole evidence to convict speeding motorists, increased penalties in the courts to deter people from speeding, a long term publicity campaign to make drivers aware of the dangers of excessive speed, the introduction of self-enforcing traffic engineering measures to help secure compliance with speed limits, a requirement for speed limiters to be fitted more widely; and advice which encourages the setting of appropriate speed limits. Those initiatives are central to the policy of reducing road casualties by one third by the year 2000. They will bring benefits to all vulnerable road users, including cyclists.
To address the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, the Government have recently launched a road safety publicity campaign focused on child cycle safety. The campaign is fronted by a television commercial aimed at persuading children to wear cycle helmets. Its importance has been illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. It has been designed to encourage the participation of organisations and commercial companies. It will extend to other issues such as improved conspicuity, greater awareness by drivers of cyclists, improved cycle training and machine maintenance.
The Government have produced a wide range of technical advice on the design of cycling facilities which is available to local authorities and other bodies. Particular attention has been given to providing advice and guidance to highway authorities on ways of implementing safe cycling routes and crossings of busy roads. The results of our sustained programme of research are contained in our Local Transport Note series of publications, available from HMSO, the latest of which is called Making Way for Cyclists. Detailed information on specific schemes and facilities to enhance the safety and convenience of cyclists is contained in our Traffic Advisory Leaflets
1702
which are distributed free to all highway authorities. Some 30 or so of those leaflets have been published since 1986.
The Department of Transport encourages the provision of cycle networks and other features which can improve the safety of cyclists. We have assisted in the development of the 1,000 mile cycle network for London. However, since 96 per cent. is on borough roads, it is for them to determine the level of provision in their areas and to liaise with neighbouring boroughs where the routes are to continue over boundaries.
The department will provide cycle lanes and crossing points on those parts of the network that are on trunk roads. In answer to the point of my noble friend Lord Marlesford, the traffic director for London will fund those parts of the network which are complementary to the operation of Red Routes and crossing points of the priority route network.
As the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, highlighted, the transport supplementary grant is largely devoted to expenditure on roads of more than just local importance which carry a large proportion of through traffic. However, since 1991–92, local safety schemes, which could include low cost road improvements at accident black spots, on all local roads have been eligible for TSG because of the valuable contribution they can make to achieving the Government's target of reducing road casualties by a third by the year 2000. Specific cycling schemes, in addition to those which qualify as a local safety scheme, or as part of one, can also qualify for TSG support if they are intended to reduce accidents on roads of more than local importance. This can involve not only the construction of facilities on main roads, such as cycle lanes and cycle crossings, but also the development of cycle routes on minor roads which attract significant numbers of cyclists away from through routes.
The responsibilities of cyclists themselves have been a subject that has caused a great deal of anxiety, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Although there is much that central and local government can do, my noble friend Lord Marlesford will, I am sure, agree that cyclists can do much to improve their own safety by ensuring that their bicycle, their lights and their reflectors are properly maintained, and by wearing conspicuous clothing and, most importantly, by obeying road traffic laws.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Swansea, cyclists who ride on pavements, ignore traffic lights or who ride the wrong way down one-way streets are a danger to themselves and other road users. Cyclists must remember that the rules of the road apply to themselves as much as anyone else. The police take action against cyclists who ignore road traffic laws. In 1991, there were 1,207 successful prosecutions for cycling offences.
In addition to safety measures, the Government have sponsored and encouraged the growth of traffic calming measures in the UK. Last year support was given to the passage of legislation, resulting in the Traffic Calming Act 1992. The Department of Transport is now bringing forward regulations to provide a clearer framework for local authorities. It is proposed that a range of features will be covered,

1703
including chicanes, narrowings, rumble strips and gateways. The development of schemes over significant areas will have a marked effect on drivers' behaviour and will help constrain the speeds.
The introduction of 20 mile-per-hour zones has accelerated this process. Fifty such schemes have already been developed. The early indications are of a considerable reduction in both the number and severity of accidents. The benefits for cyclists, as well as for pedestrians and people living in and near such schemes, can be considerable.
To answer the points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, the Department of Transport is well aware of the work of SUSTRANS, having commissioned the original survey 10 years ago of the potential of redundant railway lines in England and Wales to provide cycle routes. The department has assisted SUSTRANS in the past with crossings of the trunk road network and will continue to help where and when crossings can be justified.
The Department of Transport has been actively involved from the outset with Velo City 1993 to be held in Nottingham at the beginning of September. The department is represented on the organising committee and has made a significant contribution within the programme committee which has been putting together the business side of the conference. I understand that Ministers are likely to speak at the conference. Departmental officials will be giving papers, chairing sessions and helping with the organisation behind the scenes.
To answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, on Toucan crossings, the Department of Transport has been carrying out research to establish the crossings which allow cyclists and pedestrians to cross the road together under traffic light control. The department intends to publish guidance on the topic in the next few months.
I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Colwyn that very little has happened with regard to action on cycling matters. As I said, the Government have already undertaken research and published a wide range of technical and administration advice to local authorities. Many authorities have recognised the part that cycling can play within the traffic matrix. Cities and towns across the country such as York, Nottingham, Cambridge, Peterborough, Milton Keynes, Bristol, Southampton, Manchester and parts of London can demonstrate a range of good facilities intended to help cyclists. In response to the question put by my noble friend, measures introduced by the New Roads and Street Works Act of 1991 will do much to alleviate the problems which road users generally, and cyclists in particular, encounter from the utility street works. These include making utilities fully responsible for the reinstatement of their excavations in the high road, and better signing and guarding of street works, including the provision of robust barriers.
In framing codes of practice under the Act, the specific needs of cyclists were given due attention, notably in the codes dealing with signing and
1704
guarding, reinstatement and co-ordination of street works and highway authorities' works for road purposes.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Vivian, the Government have given clear guidance to local authorities on the importance of providing well-designed and sensibly located parking facilities for cyclists. Signs attached to railings and private property are not the responsibility of government. It has to be remembered that cycles attached to railings can cause damage and can obstruct a public thoroughfare.
I thank my noble friend Lord Mancroft for referring to Chinese imports, which have caused concern in the industry. It is for the European Commission to consider complaints about cheap imports under the Community's anti-dumping legislation. The Commission is currently carrying out an anti-dumping investigation into imports of Chinese bicycles. Pending completion of its investigation, it imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty of 34.4 per cent. on these imports with effect from 12th March 1993. If that duty is confirmed in due course, it will last for five years.
The European Community, like most developed countries, operates a generalised system of preferences scheme, which allows duty-free entry for products, including bicycles, from developing countries as a means of increasing their export earnings, promoting their industrialisation and accelerating the rate of their economic growth. Although comparatively advanced and competitive in a number of fields, China's overall industrial development and GNP per head remain at a comparable level to those of most developing countries.
However, it is because it is recognised that beneficiaries of GSP may be highly competitive in specific product areas that the scheme allows member states to request a re-imposition of duty once a pre-determined level of imports has been reached, when it can be shown that those preferential imports are causing damage to domestic industry. Following consultations with interested parties, the Department of Trade and Industry has asked the European Commission to re-impose normal duty on Chinese bicycles for the remainder of 1993.
The Government have concentrated their efforts on making cycling safer. That policy is borne out by the statistics. In 1991 there were 25,042 reported accidents involving pedal cycles, in which 242 cyclists were killed, 3,946 cyclists were seriously injured and 20,650 cyclists were slightly injured. Total casualties and fatalities fell by 6 per cent. between 1990 and 1991. Compared to the 1981–85 average total casualties have fallen by 22 per cent. and fatalities by 32 per cent. Provisional figures for 1992 show that cycling casualties have continued to decrease: 204 cyclists were killed; 3,769 were seriously injured; and 20,803 were slightly injured.
It is for individuals to decide whether or not to cycle. We recognise that cycling has the potential to confer considerable environmental, health and cost benefits. However, a significant inhibitor to people's willingness to cycle is concern about safety. The

1705
Government have therefore promoted measures to improve the safety and convenience of cycling. We shall continue to seek an advancement in driver behaviour and conditions which can assist cyclists.
I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and in particular my noble friend Lord Marlesford for giving us the opportunity to discuss cycling issues which have attracted such interest at this late hour.

Charities Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Clean Air Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Radioactive Substances Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past midnight.

  SERVICE CHILDREN'S SCHOOLS (NORTH WEST EUROPE)
  SERVICE CHILDREN'S SCHOOLS (NORTH WEST EUROPE)